Speculative Evidence And Constitutionalism: The Limits Of Neuroscience In Indian Jurisprudence
- IJLLR Journal
- Mar 20
- 2 min read
Lakshmi Satya Sumana Krovvidi, Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, Visakhapatnam Pasupula Sindhu, Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, Visakhapatnam
Vegi Sevanthika Viharika, Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, Visakhapatnam
ABSTRACT
Neuro-jurisprudence in India represents an evolving frontier of legal thought where neuroscience, law, and constitutional philosophy converge. With advances in brain science offering insights into memory, cognition, and decision-making, Indian courts have been confronted with novel forms of evidence such as narco-analysis, polygraph testing, and brain electrical oscillation signature (BEOS) profiling. These technologies, initially celebrated as potential tools of truth-finding, have since been subjected to rigorous scrutiny owing to their speculative reliability and profound constitutional implications.
The concept of speculative evidence is central to this inquiry, as neuroscientific techniques often promise more than what they can scientifically deliver. In India, the landmark judgment in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) firmly rejected the involuntary use of such techniques, holding them unconstitutional under Articles 20(3) and 21. This ruling reflects a broader judicial hesitation to admit evidence that risks violating individual dignity, privacy, and the right against self-incrimination, even when presented under the banner of scientific advancement.
This project examines the theoretical foundations of neuro-jurisprudence and situates speculative evidence within the Indian legal framework, particularly the Evidence Act, 1872. By analyzing judicial responses, key case law, and comparative perspectives, it evaluates whether neuroscientific methods can ever attain the reliability necessary for evidentiary acceptance. Further, it addresses the philosophical and ethical challenges posed by such evidence, including issues of consent, voluntariness, and the danger of technological determinism in law.
Ultimately, this study argues that while neuroscience holds promise for enriching legal understandings of human behaviour and culpability, its evidentiary role in India must remain circumscribed. The future of neuro-jurisprudence lies not in uncritical acceptance of speculative techniques but in carefully balancing scientific innovation with the constitutional commitment to liberty, fairness, and human dignity.
