THE LAW’S QUIET BLIND SPOT IN INDIA: THE SURVEILLANCE OF THOUGHT AND THE CASE FOR A NEW PRIVACY RIGHT

Abstract

The fast growth of surveillance technology has drastically changed India's balance amongst individual liberty and political authority. Inconceivable amounts of data collection and behaviors analysis have been made possible by the combination of electronic tracking systems, AI (artificial intelligence), and sophisticated analysis of data. Although the legal framework created following the Apex Court's landmark decision in Honorable K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India recognized privacy or as essential rights (Fundamental right) within Article 21, it is still mostly restricted to the instructive and corporeal dimensions of confidentiality 1 . This study explores the idea of the "monitoring of thinking," which refers to electronically facilitated methods that use data trends and electronic (digital) behavioral assessment to infer, anticipate, and possibly affect humans thinking. Intellectual observation works by creating mental profiling and prediction models that disclose opinions, choices, and desires, in contrast with conventional observation, which concentrates on tracking activities or telecommunications .2 Substantial constitutional issues are raised by such activities, especially in relation to liberty of expressing itself, psychological independence, and decency. The danger is increased by the potential for cognitive regulation and computational tampering which could stifle independent thinking and participatory engagement. The article makes the case that supreme law (Constitutional law) has a "silent blind zone" because it does not identify and control incursions into the intellectual realm. Judicial and parliamentary advances have not specifically tackled intellectual freedom or mental confidentiality, notwithstanding Puttaswamy expansive concept of confidentiality. This study shows that current statutory safeguards are inadequate to adequately safeguard people from the growing risks of mental monitoring via conceptual study and involvement with modern technical circumstances. 3 As reaction, the article argues that Art. 21 of Constitution should recognize a fresh basic entitlement (Right) to mental confidentiality or intellectual autonomy. In order to prevent advances in technology from undermining the fundamental principles of liberty, integrity, and democratization, it closes by highlighting the necessity of focused parliamentary improvements, judiciary creativity, and strong organizational safeguarding.