"Ownership Of Thought: Can Neural Data Be "Property"? An Analysis Under The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
- IJLLR Journal
- 18 hours ago
- 1 min read
N.K Thridev Prince B.Com., LL.B, St. Joseph’s College of Law
ABSTRACT
Can your thoughts be considered property? Can it be sold?, bequeathed?, or stolen? These questions have transcended science fiction and entered the domain of live legal inquiry with the advent of Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) technology. Elon Musk's Neuralink, a device capable of capturing, decoding, and transmitting the brain's electrical impulses into machine- readable data, thereby converting literal thought into transferable information. This research examines whether such neural data, information extracted directly from the human brain, constitutes 'property' under India's Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The paper interrogates the statutory categories of 'movable property', 'actionable claims', and 'transferable property' under the TPA to assess neural data's potential legal classification. It further analyses whether treating neural data as commodifiable property violates constitutional rights to privacy, mental autonomy, and dignity as recognised in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). The paper ultimately argues that while neural data technically satisfies certain definitional thresholds for property under the TPA's broad, non-exhaustive framework, commodifying it as freely transferable property is constitutionally untenable. The paper concludes by advocating for a sui generis legal regime, similar to Chile's constitutional neurorights amendment, tailored to India's constitutional culture and technological realities.
Keywords: Neural Data, Brain-Computer Interface, Neuralink, Transfer of Property Act 1882, Movable Property, Actionable Claim, Right to Privacy, Mental Autonomy, Cognitive Liberty, Sui Generis, Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, Neurorights.
