1. Introduction

The Cosmic Neural-Rights Doctrine Accountability is a proposed interdisciplinary legal and constitutional framework concerned with protecting human neural activity, cognitive autonomy, mental privacy, brain-generated information and neurological identity against unauthorized interference by governments, corporations, artificial intelligence systems, neurotechnology companies and potentially extraterrestrial or space-based technological systems.

The doctrine combines three important legal dimensions:

Cosmic governance: Protection of human cognitive integrity in an increasingly interconnected technological and potentially space-based civilization.

Neural rights: Recognition and protection of fundamental rights relating to the human brain, mind, consciousness, memory, emotions and cognitive freedom.

Accountability: Establishment of legal responsibility for entities that collect, manipulate, decode, commercialize, monitor or interfere with neural information.

The doctrine is not currently a formally recognized independent doctrine of international law. It is a proposed normative framework that can be developed from existing constitutional rights, human-rights principles, medical ethics, data-protection law, biotechnology regulation and emerging neurotechnology governance.

Its central proposition is:

No technological, governmental, commercial or institutional entity should exercise unauthorized control over an individual's neural activity, cognitive autonomy or mental identity.

2. Meaning and Scope of Cosmic Neural Rights

Neural rights are fundamental protections concerning the human nervous system and the mental processes associated with it.

Traditional human-rights law protects physical liberty, privacy, dignity, freedom of thought and bodily integrity. However, advanced neurotechnology creates new possibilities for accessing and influencing information generated by the brain.

Examples include:

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs).

Neural implants and neurological devices.

Artificial intelligence-based brain-signal interpretation.

Neuroimaging and neural surveillance.

Emotion and intention prediction.

Memory-related technological interventions.

Cognitive enhancement technologies.

Neural data collection by employers and corporations.

Neurotechnology used in military, judicial and security environments.

The cosmic dimension expands the inquiry beyond conventional territorial governance. It considers how neural rights should be protected when neurotechnological activities involve international networks, satellite communications, space-based research, multinational corporations or future extraterrestrial settlements.

Neuralink planira proizvodnju "velikog broja" implanta za mozak - Glas Srpske

Brain–Computer Interfaces in Space Exploration: Technological Integration, Mission Advantages,and Ethical-Legal Implications

A new brain-computer interface with a flexible backing

11

3. Fundamental Principles of the Doctrine

A. Neural Privacy

Neural privacy means the right of individuals to prevent unauthorized collection, processing, disclosure and commercialization of brain-related information.

Neural data may potentially reveal information about:

Cognitive responses.

Emotional reactions.

Attention patterns.

Neurological conditions.

Mental preferences.

Certain intentions or behavioural tendencies.

Such information requires particularly strong protection because it may expose aspects of a person's mental life that are not voluntarily communicated.

B. Cognitive Liberty

Cognitive liberty protects an individual's freedom to control their own mental processes.

It includes:

Freedom to use or refuse neurotechnology.

Freedom from involuntary cognitive modification.

Freedom from unauthorized neural experimentation.

Freedom to make independent mental decisions.

Protection against coercive brain stimulation.

C. Mental Integrity

Mental integrity protects individuals against unauthorized technological interference with their neurological and cognitive functioning.

For example, a company should not manipulate an employee's neurological responses through compulsory neurostimulation without lawful justification and meaningful consent.

D. Psychological and Cognitive Autonomy

This principle recognizes that individuals must retain meaningful control over their thoughts, beliefs, decisions and cognitive development.

AI systems should not be permitted to use neural information to manipulate individuals in ways that undermine their capacity for independent decision-making.

E. Neural Equality

Neural rights must apply equally regardless of economic status, disability, nationality, age or access to cognitive-enhancement technologies.

A society should not develop a system in which individuals with enhanced cognitive capabilities receive superior legal, political or economic rights.

F. Intergenerational Neural Protection

The doctrine also considers future generations.

Governance frameworks should prevent irreversible neurological experimentation, harmful genetic-neural interventions and the uncontrolled commercialization of technologies that may affect future human cognitive development.

4. Legal Accountability Architecture

The doctrine proposes a comprehensive accountability structure involving six dimensions.

A. State Accountability

Governments must ensure that public authorities do not use neurotechnology to conduct unlawful surveillance, involuntary psychological experimentation or unauthorized cognitive profiling.

State accountability arises where:

Police authorities conduct involuntary brain-based interrogation.

Intelligence agencies unlawfully obtain neural information.

Governments deploy neurotechnology for political or behavioural manipulation.

Public institutions discriminate against individuals based on neurological characteristics.

In constitutional democracies, the State must establish legality, necessity, proportionality and procedural safeguards before restricting neural privacy.

B. Corporate Accountability

Technology companies developing neural devices should be legally responsible for protecting users' neural information.

Corporate obligations should include:

Transparent disclosure of data-collection practices.

Informed and specific consent.

Secure storage and transmission of neural data.

Prohibition of unauthorized commercial exploitation.

Independent safety assessments.

Mechanisms for deletion and withdrawal of consent.

Disclosure of significant cybersecurity breaches.

Accountability for harmful algorithmic processing.

A company should not escape responsibility merely because neural information is processed through cloud infrastructure or an external AI provider.

C. Scientific and Research Accountability

Universities, research institutions and biotechnology laboratories should comply with ethical research standards.

Research involving human neural activity should ordinarily require:

Independent ethical review.

Voluntary informed consent.

Scientific necessity.

Risk-benefit assessment.

Protection of vulnerable participants.

Clear limitations on secondary data use.

D. Artificial Intelligence Accountability

AI systems capable of interpreting neural signals create special accountability challenges.

For example, an AI system may infer emotional responses, attention levels or cognitive patterns from neurological signals.

The doctrine would require developers and deploying institutions to explain:

What neural information is processed.

Which inferences are generated.

Whether those inferences are reliable.

Whether the system influences human decisions.

Who is responsible when its outputs cause harm.

E. International Accountability

Neural data may move across international borders through cloud computing, multinational research arrangements and digital communication networks.

The proposed doctrine therefore supports international cooperation concerning:

Cross-border neural-data transfers.

Common minimum privacy standards.

Neurotechnology export controls where justified.

International research ethics.

Remedies for transnational violations.

F. Cosmic and Extraterrestrial Accountability

The cosmic dimension introduces a future-oriented legal question: who is responsible for protecting human neural rights when neurotechnological activities occur in outer space or extraterrestrial settlements?

Potential situations include:

Brain-computer interfaces used by astronauts.

Neural monitoring in long-duration space missions.

Cognitive-enhancement experiments in space.

Neural data transmitted through satellite networks.

Private companies conducting neurological research in extraterrestrial environments.

The doctrine would require space agencies, private operators and research institutions to preserve human dignity, consent, confidentiality and cognitive autonomy regardless of the physical location of the activity.

Existing international space law does not expressly establish a separate system of cosmic neural rights. The proposed framework would therefore build upon existing human-rights obligations and applicable space-law principles.

5. Important Case Laws and Judicial Foundations

The following judgments provide the principal legal foundations for developing the doctrine. Some directly concern neurotechnology; others establish constitutional principles that can be extended to neural rights.

Case 1. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263

Directly relevant to neural rights

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Facts: The case concerned the involuntary administration of narcoanalysis, polygraph examinations and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) tests during criminal investigations.

Legal questions:

Can investigating authorities involuntarily subject individuals to scientific techniques that reveal information about their mental processes?

Does compulsory administration violate Article 20(3)?

Does it violate personal liberty under Article 21?

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that involuntary administration of these techniques violates constitutional protections against testimonial compulsion and personal liberty.

The Court emphasized mental privacy, individual autonomy and the importance of voluntary consent.

Relevance to the doctrine:

This is one of the strongest foundations for Cosmic Neural-Rights Doctrine Accountability.

It establishes that investigative efficiency cannot automatically justify the involuntary extraction of information from an individual's mind.

It supports:

Cognitive liberty.

Mental privacy.

Protection against involuntary neural interrogation.

Constitutional accountability of law-enforcement authorities.

Case 2. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

Foundational constitutional authority

Court: Supreme Court of India, nine-judge Constitution Bench.

Facts: The case concerned whether privacy is a constitutionally protected fundamental right.

Judgment: The Court unanimously recognized privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, particularly through Articles 14, 19 and 21.

The judgment recognized different dimensions of privacy, including:

Bodily privacy.

Informational privacy.

Decisional autonomy.

Personal liberty.

Individual dignity.

Relevance to neural rights:

Neural information is particularly sensitive because it may reveal aspects of an individual's mental life.

The constitutional protection of informational privacy can therefore provide a basis for protecting:

Brain-generated information.

Neural recordings.

Cognitive profiles.

Neurological identity.

Mental autonomy.

Government interference must satisfy constitutional requirements of legality, legitimate purpose and proportionality.

Doctrinal contribution: Neural privacy should be understood as an advanced application of constitutional informational privacy, rather than as an entirely unrelated legal right.

Case 3. Girardi v. Emotiv Inc. (Rol No. 105.065-2023, 9 August 2023)

Landmark neurotechnology judgment

Court: Supreme Court of Chile.

Facts: Guido Girardi used Emotiv's Insight neurotechnology device, which collected information relating to cerebral electrical activity.

The dispute concerned the storage, handling and potential use of the user's brain-related information.

Judgment: The Supreme Court accepted the constitutional protection claim and ordered the deletion of the stored information relating to the claimant. It also directed relevant public authorities to examine the regulatory compliance of the device's commercialization, use and data handling.

The Court considered privacy and physical and psychological integrity, alongside applicable domestic legislation.

Relevance to the doctrine:

This judgment is especially important because it moves beyond conventional digital privacy and addresses information generated directly through neurological activity.

It supports five important propositions:

Brain information deserves heightened legal protection.

Neural-data collection requires appropriate legal safeguards.

Consent must be meaningful and informed.

Commercial neurotechnology requires regulatory oversight.

Companies can be subject to accountability for unlawful handling of neural information.

The judgment represents a particularly significant judicial foundation for emerging neuro-rights jurisprudence.

desc.scjn.gob.mx+2

Case 4. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) 2 SCC 424

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Legal principle: Protection against compelled self-incrimination under Article 20(3).

Judgment: The Court interpreted protection against self-incrimination broadly in the context of police interrogation and recognized the importance of protecting individuals from compelled disclosures.

Relevance to neural rights:

The principle can be extended to situations in which neural devices are used to obtain potentially incriminating cognitive information.

For example, an investigative authority should not be permitted to bypass constitutional safeguards by replacing conventional questioning with compulsory brain-signal analysis.

The doctrine therefore treats neural interrogation as a serious constitutional issue, not merely a technical investigative procedure.

Case 5. Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) 9 SCC 1

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Legal principle: Reproductive autonomy and personal liberty under Article 21.

Judgment: The Court recognized the importance of reproductive choice as an aspect of personal liberty and bodily autonomy.

Relevance to neural rights:

The underlying principle of personal autonomy provides support for protecting an individual's authority over neurological interventions.

Medical or technological intervention affecting the brain should not be imposed without legally adequate justification and appropriate consent.

Case 6. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1963 SC 1295

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Legal principle: Personal liberty and protection against intrusive State surveillance.

Relevance to neural rights:

The judgment provides an early constitutional foundation for examining intrusive surveillance.

Its importance lies in the principle that governmental surveillance must be assessed against constitutional guarantees of personal liberty.

Modern neural surveillance presents a more intimate form of intrusion because it potentially accesses information generated within the human brain.

Case 7. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Legal principle: Any procedure depriving a person of personal liberty must be just, fair and reasonable.

Relevance to neural rights:

This judgment supports the proposition that compulsory neural experimentation, cognitive interference and intrusive neurological monitoring cannot be justified through arbitrary administrative procedures.

Any legally permissible restriction must satisfy constitutional standards of fairness and reasonableness.

6. International Legal Framework

The proposed doctrine can draw upon the following international instruments and initiatives.

UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology (2025)

An especially important development is UNESCO's adoption of its Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology in November 2025.

It establishes an international normative framework addressing the ethical and human-rights implications of neurotechnology.

Its importance includes:

Protection of human dignity.

Protection of mental privacy.

Respect for cognitive autonomy.

Responsible scientific development.

Prevention of discriminatory applications.

Protection of individuals from technological manipulation.

It provides an important contemporary foundation for developing international neural-rights accountability, although a UNESCO recommendation is not itself a binding international treaty.

UNESCO+2

The UN Secretary-General's Scientific Advisory Board also highlighted the importance of consent, privacy, human agency, security and inequality in its January 2025 neurotechnology brief.

Secretary-General’s Scientific Advisory Board+1

7. Indian Constitutional and Statutory Framework

India does not currently have a separate comprehensive Neural Rights Act. Nevertheless, existing constitutional and statutory protections provide a foundation for neural-rights accountability.

A. Constitutional provisions

Article 14 – Equality before law

Protects individuals against arbitrary discrimination, including potentially discriminatory uses of neurological profiling.

Article 19 – Fundamental freedoms

May protect freedom of expression, association and other freedoms against unjustified cognitive surveillance and manipulation.

Article 20(3) – Protection against self-incrimination

Particularly relevant to involuntary neural interrogation, as established in Selvi.

Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty

Provides the central constitutional foundation for:

Mental privacy.

Human dignity.

Bodily and psychological integrity.

Personal autonomy.

Protection against arbitrary neurological intervention.

B. Relevant legislation

Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023: Provides a statutory framework for processing digital personal data, subject to its applicability and provisions. Neural information in identifiable digital form may fall within its scope.

Information Technology Act, 2000: Relevant to certain unlawful digital activities and data-related offences.

Mental Healthcare Act, 2017: Provides protections relating to mental healthcare, dignity, autonomy and informed consent.

Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Relevant to misleading claims, unfair practices and defective neurotechnology products.

Medical Devices Rules, 2017: Relevant where a neurotechnology product falls within the regulatory definition of a medical device.

Bio-Medical and Health Research Regulation: Relevant to research involving human participants and applicable ethical safeguards.

These laws do not collectively create an independent constitutional category called cosmic neural rights. Rather, they provide existing legal mechanisms through which many of the proposed protections can be implemented.

8. Liability and Enforcement Under the Doctrine

The doctrine proposes a multi-layered system of liability.

Corporate and institutional responsibility

The proposed doctrine would also introduce the following governance mechanisms:

Mandatory neural-data protection assessments.

Independent neurotechnology ethics committees.

External algorithmic audits.

Transparent neural-data processing records.

Mandatory incident-reporting systems.

Independent neurological safety inspections.

Effective complaint and compensation mechanisms.

An important distinction is that liability must depend on actual conduct, applicable law, causation and available defences. Merely developing neurotechnology should not automatically create legal liability.

9. Cosmic Neural-Rights Doctrine and Space Law

Polacy przetestują sterowanie komputerem za pomocą myśli. W kosmosie

spidersweb.pl

The cosmic dimension creates a particularly interesting extension of the doctrine.

Imagine a future space mission in which astronauts use implanted neural devices to communicate with AI-controlled spacecraft.

Suppose the operator of the spacecraft collects neural information without the astronauts' knowledge and uses that information to influence their decisions.

Several legal questions arise:

Does the astronaut retain mental privacy in outer space?

Can a private space company collect neural data without meaningful consent?

Who is responsible if a neural device causes psychological injury?

Can a space agency compel cognitive enhancement?

Which jurisdiction should hear a dispute involving multinational operators?

What safeguards should apply to neural data transmitted through satellite networks?

The Outer Space Treaty, 1967, provides an existing international legal framework for space activities, but it does not expressly recognize neural rights.

The proposed doctrine would extend established principles of human dignity, privacy, informed consent and State responsibility to these emerging circumstances.

Its central cosmic governance principle is that geographical distance from Earth must not diminish the fundamental rights of human beings.

10. Major Challenges to the Doctrine

A. Defining Neural Information

Not every brain signal reveals a person's thoughts. Scientific uncertainty makes it necessary to distinguish raw neurological measurements from reliable cognitive inferences.

B. Establishing Causation

It may be difficult to establish whether a particular neurological injury resulted from a device, an algorithm, an underlying medical condition or another factor.

C. Corporate Secrecy

Companies may claim that neural-processing algorithms are protected commercial secrets. Accountability mechanisms must balance legitimate intellectual-property interests with the need for meaningful transparency.

D. Cross-Border Jurisdiction

Neural data can be collected in one country, processed in another and stored in a third. Determining jurisdiction and effective remedies is consequently difficult.

E. Cognitive Enhancement Inequality

Advanced neural enhancement could produce unequal access to education, employment and economic opportunities.

F. Scientific and Ethical Uncertainty

Regulation must protect individuals without unnecessarily preventing beneficial neurotechnology, including devices that restore communication, movement or neurological functioning.

11. Proposed Seven-Pillar Accountability Model

The Cosmic Neural-Rights Doctrine can be developed through seven interconnected pillars.

Seven pillars of cosmic neural-rights accountability

1. Mental sovereignty

Protection of individual control over mental processes

2. Neural privacy

Protection of brain-generated and inferred information

3. Cognitive autonomy

Freedom from coercive cognitive manipulation

4. Neurological integrity

Protection against unauthorized neurological interference

5. Algorithmic accountability

Responsibility for AI-based neural interpretation and intervention

6. Transnational governance

International standards and cross-border legal remedies

7. Cosmic human protection

Preservation of human neural rights in space-based environments

12. Judicial Remedies and Institutional Enforcement

Under the proposed doctrine, the following remedies could be developed using existing legal powers and, where necessary, new legislation.

Constitutional remedies in India:

Article 32: Constitutional remedies before the Supreme Court.

Article 226: Writ jurisdiction of High Courts.

Injunctions against unlawful neural surveillance.

Orders protecting confidential neural information.

Appropriate compensation where legally justified.

Regulatory remedies:

Investigation of unauthorized neural-data processing.

Suspension or restriction of unlawful device operations.

Orders concerning deletion of unlawfully retained information.

Corrective compliance directions.

Civil and institutional remedies:

Compensation for proven injury.

Product-liability claims where applicable.

Medical negligence proceedings.

Research ethics investigations.

Institutional disciplinary proceedings.

International remedies:

The proposed framework could support international cooperation, treaty-based complaint mechanisms and cross-border accountability procedures.

However, international remedies would require an applicable jurisdictional basis or a newly established legal instrument.

13. Critical Legal Analysis

The most important contribution of this proposed doctrine is the recognition that conventional privacy law may not always adequately address the distinctive risks associated with neurotechnology.

Ordinary digital privacy generally concerns information that individuals generate through communication, transactions and online activities.

Neural information is different because it may be collected directly from neurological activity, potentially without an individual communicating the underlying information voluntarily.

This creates a fundamental distinction between:

Privacy of information communicated by an individual.

Privacy of information inferred about an individual.

Privacy of information obtained directly from neurological activity.

Protection against technological alteration of neurological functioning.

The doctrine therefore proposes a shift from conventional informational privacy towards neural sovereignty and cognitive self-determination.

Its cosmic dimension adds a further principle: technological development, geographical expansion and artificial intelligence integration should not create legal spaces in which fundamental human dignity becomes unprotected.

14. Conclusion

The Cosmic Neural-Rights Doctrine Accountability represents a proposed future-oriented framework for protecting human cognitive freedom, mental privacy, neurological integrity and individual autonomy in an era of advanced neurotechnology.

Its strongest existing judicial foundations are:

Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) – Protection against involuntary extraction of mental information.

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) – Constitutional privacy and informational autonomy.

Girardi v. Emotiv Inc. (2023) – Direct judicial protection concerning commercially collected brain information.

Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) – Protection against compelled self-incrimination.

Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) – Personal autonomy and bodily integrity.

Together, these authorities provide a substantial foundation for developing neural-rights jurisprudence, although they do not establish the complete proposed cosmic doctrine.

The ultimate legal proposition is that the human brain must not become an unrestricted technological resource. Neural information, cognitive autonomy and mental integrity must remain protected dimensions of human dignity, irrespective of whether neurotechnology operates on Earth, through artificial intelligence networks or in future extraterrestrial environments.

15. Suggested Advanced Research Directions

For further development into a PhD-level legal monograph, the following subjects offer distinct research directions:

Cosmic Neural-Rights Constitutionalism.

Neural Sovereignty and Extraterrestrial Jurisdiction.

Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Autonomy Accountability.

Corporate Liability for Unauthorized Neural Surveillance.

Neural Data Sovereignty and International Human Rights.

Neurotechnology, Space Law and Human Dignity.

Constitutional Protection Against Algorithmic Mind Manipulation.

Important primary research resources:

UNESCO – Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology (2025).

Girardi v. Emotiv – Chilean Supreme Court judgment record.

Selvi v. State of Karnataka – Full judgment.

K.S. Puttaswamy – Supreme Court judgment.