ABSTRACT
Neuroscientific evidence started playing a prominent role in the legal system, reshaping how we think about evidence, responsibility and justice. Thanks to the advancements in brain imaging and related technologies which led us to get a clearer picture of how brain functions, paving new ways to understanding behavioral patterns and decision making. This raises important questions for the law: should brain based evidences be admitted in court? Can it really reveal intent and reliability and where should limits be set to not misuse it.
This paper explores these pressing issues with a critical focus on the law of evidence. It examines the relevance of it in the Indian courts and provides insights about other jurisdictions across the globe and also how it affects the system of law. This paper also addresses both the potential benefits and ethical challenges including concerns over privacy, the risk of determinism and the limits of current scientific understanding. Bringing neuroscience into the legal field, the justice system is required to reconsider fundamental principles related to culpability, intent and fairness and also, we are challenged to rethink how justice is defined and delivered in modern world.
- INTRODUCTION
Evidence is considered the bridge between alleged facts and judicial decisions.[1] The quality, admissibility, and reliability of evidence can’t be underscored enough, as it plays a key role in pronouncing a person or a party guilty or innocent. One piece of wrong evidence and a decision given in furtherance questions the legitimacy of the judicial system itself. Whether it’s in criminal cases where questions of guilt and culpability arise or in civil cases where rights and liabilities are decided, evidence plays a pivotal role. The principle that no one is to be convicted without proof beyond a reasonable doubt underscores the heightened role evidence plays in safeguarding individual liberty in criminal law and the balance of probabilities in civil law.[2]
The question of “What’s to be admitted as evidence?” is one that has undergone various changes, and courts are no strangers to this question, as in the course of time, we can see them adopting newer forms. One such form of evidence that calls for our immediate attention is “Neuroscientific Evidence”. Studies in neuroscience shows that when a person attempts deception there are heightened loads of cognitive processes when compared to telling the truth. Deception typically activates the prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex and parietal regions which are responsible for conflict monitoring, decision making and suppressing truthful responses. This results in distinct brain patterns which methods such as functional MRI (fMRI) and EEG-based methods seek to capture by measuring changes in blood flow, oxygen consumption or electrical activity in the brain.
As said by David M. Eagleman, a neuroscientist and professor in Stanford University,“Neural understanding of behaviours will lead to better prediction of recidivism, a rational basis of sentencing and customized rehabilitation.”[3]This evidence, if made admissible, has the potential to facilitate rational sentencing and better rehabilitation mechanisms. But the admissibility and reliability of these evidences in court room proceedings and their persuasive role in giving judgements raises profound legal, ethical and evidentiary challenges. Potential infringement of constitutional rights such as right against self-incrimination and right to privacy remain at the forefront of this debate. Weighing the scientific promises against the risk of misuse, prejudice and over-reliance of technology is the need of the hour.
Thus, the discussion doesn’t limit itself to scientific promises and accuracy but extends to compatibility with fundamental rights, legal principles and due safeguards in place. At the core, this compels us to consider the dynamic relationship between law and technology and as to how far the courts can go on to integrate them and the price, we might have to pay for the steps taken.[4] This journal seeks to evaluate these very questions by analysing neuroscientific evidence, their reliability, the scientific backing they hold, safeguards to be kept in place to ensure fair usage and the broader implications it holds for evidence law in civil and criminal jurisdictions.
[1]Manupatra Academic, Law of Evidence—Chapter 1, http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Abk/Law-of-Evidence/chapter1.htm (last visited Sept. 1, 2025).
[2]Use of Evidence, Rule of Law Educ. Ctr. (Aust.), https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/crime/criminal-trial-processes/use-of-evidence (last visited Sept. 1, 2025).
[3]DAVID EAGLEMAN, THE BRAIN: THE STORY OF YOU (Pantheon Books 2015).
[4]6 Major Challenges of Legal Technology Adoption, DoxFlowy, https://doxflowy.com/challenges-legal-technology/ (last visited Sept. 1, 2025).