IN A STRIKING REFLECTION, Oxford’s Word of the Year for 2024 was “brain rot”—a term that encapsulates the impact of consuming excessive amounts of mind-numbing digital content. Interestingly, the phrase “brain rot” was first used by Henry David Thoreau in 1854 in Walden, where he criticised society’s inclination towards superficiality over depth. Today, it captures growing fears about the cognitive effects of compulsive endless social media scrolling, where algorithms reward emotional responses over rational discourse and fuel a cycle of distraction and intellectual decay.
Social platforms have transformed how we communicate, often encouraging users to share without reflection. Rather than appealing to our reasoning faculties, these systems exploit cognitive biases, fostering addictive behaviours that erode our capacity for focused thought. This manipulation of attention has far-reaching implications, not only for individual cognition but also for collective autonomy.
Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court once noted, “Minds are not changed in streets and parks as they once were. To an increasing degree, the more significant interchanges of ideas and shaping of public consciousness occur in mass and electronic media”. This observation underscores a shift from traditional public discourse to algorithmically mediated interaction, where information flows are technology driven.
A darker potential looms in the prospect of technologies capable of influencing, interpreting, or even controlling thought itself—akin to the phenomenon of “Doublethink”, to borrow from Orwell’s ‘1984’, where individuals were compelled to abandon personal perception in favour of officially sanctioned narratives. In such a world, privacy of thought vanishes, replaced by surveillance so pervasive that even dreams or diary entries could incriminate.
The United Nations raised red flags in 2021 about the ethical risks of emerging neurotechnologies designed to decode, predict, or alter human thought. Companies like Meta and Neuralink are racing to develop brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) that can convert neural activity into digital output in real-time.
These systems could allow users to control devices with their thoughts but they also risk breaching the last bastion of human freedom: the mind itself. Recent developments demonstrate this unsettling trajectory. Meta has reportedly achieved a degree of success in reconstructing visual experiences by analysing brainwave data using magnetoencephalography (MEG) technology. Orwell’s chilling assertion in ‘1984’, that even the ruling party in the totalitarian state had not yet found a way to uncover private thought, may no longer hold true.
The notion of ‘freedom of thought’
Despite its critical importance, the right to freedom of thought (‘FoT’) remains underdeveloped in both law and discourse. Enshrined in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’) and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’), the right is vague and infrequently invoked. In practice, FoT is often reduced to protecting only the most controversial or marginal inner experiences, such as in U.S. legal cases involving disturbing yet unacted upon thoughts. Indian legal frameworks, for example, make no explicit reference to it.
A broadened interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution - “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law” - has, over the years, evolved to include several implicit fundamental rights. Among these, mental privacy and freedom of thought can indeed be enveloped through judicial interpretation.
In the landmark case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court explicitly recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. The judgment noted that privacy has many facets, including bodily privacy, informational privacy, and mental privacy. It recognised that mental privacy is crucial in the context of surveillance, data collection, behavioural profiling, and neuro-technologies.
This opens the door for legal protections against forced disclosure of thoughts or beliefs, manipulation of thoughts via tech (AI, neuro-imaging, brain-computer interfaces), and non-consensual psychological profiling. Though freedom of conscience and religion is protected under Article 25, freedom of thought per se isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. However, freedom of thought forms the core of human dignity, and is indirectly supported by Articles 19(1)(a) and 21.
The Puttaswamy judgment laid the philosophical and legal groundwork to assert that cognitive liberty (freedom to think freely, without coercion or surveillance) is intrinsic to privacy and thus protected under Article 21. For Article 21 to fully envelope mental privacy and freedom of thought, courts can issue guidelines to protect individuals from mental surveillance, coerced ideological conformity, or data-driven mental profiling.
Legislative backing may be necessary to regulate neurotechnologies, AI systems and digital platforms that could intrude into mental privacy. A broadened interpretation of Article 21, especially post-Puttaswamy, clearly allows mental privacy and freedom of thought to be recognised as protected rights. As technology advances, Indian constitutional jurisprudence is well-equipped to evolve in protecting these intangible but vital freedoms under the umbrella of personal liberty and dignity.
Revisiting the legal foundations of the ‘freedom of thought’
Gabriel S. Mendlow, a professor of philosophy (2018) pointed out in a 2018 paper that the legal foundations of FoT are weak. It remains unclear what qualifies as a “thought,” what constitutes interference, or whether the right should be absolute. In 2021, UN Special Rapporteur Ahmed Shaheed took a step toward clarifying the scope of this right, identifying four essential protections:
(a) the right not to reveal one’s thoughts,
(b) protection from punishment based solely on thoughts,
(c) immunity from involuntary alteration of thoughts, and
(d) a societal environment conducive to cognitive autonomy.
Renowned neuroscientists further suggested that core components of mental autonomy include attention and cognitive agency. The former, the ability to direct and sustain one’s attention, is increasingly compromised by digital environments optimised for engagement over reflection. Social media platforms weaponise behavioural science to hijack attention, fostering compulsive scrolling and passive consumption. Protecting personal data is thus integral to guarding cognitive liberty.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, enforces the Puttaswamy mandate by setting concrete limits on data use. For example, the Act applies to all digital personal data collected in India and requires that any processing be lawful and transparent. In effect, it treats data as an extension of mental privacy: people can only lose this “informational privacy” with their consent or for narrowly specified reasons.
Traditional notions of thought as confined to the mind may also require revision. When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted, delegates debated the need to protect the “inner sphere” of thought, then believed to be inherently inviolable. The delegates remarked: “It would be unnecessary to proclaim freedom of ‘the inner sphere’ if it were never to be given an outward expression” as the inner is beyond any access.
However, it was argued in the theory of the “extended mind” that cognitive processes can extend beyond the skull, encompassing tools like notebooks or even digital devices. If external objects fulfil the same cognitive functions as the brain, they too may deserve protection under the umbrella of FoT.
Mental privacy underpins mental freedom. Without it, individuals may face social and internal pressures to conform. This in turn fosters self-censorship, reducing cognitive diversity and autonomy. Empirical studies suggest that internal thoughts can affect both personal behaviour and public actions. As such, protecting thought from manipulation, whether by governments, corporations, or AI, is essential.
In the United States, courts generally affirm the sanctity of thought. For instance, in Steffan v. Perry (1994), the court upheld that internal thoughts, regardless of their moral content, cannot be criminalized in absence of overt action. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit observed: “the fundamental constitutional principle that a person's thoughts are his own, however distasteful they may be to the state or to the populace”.
While it is true that thoughts can lead to harmful behaviour, legal systems have drawn a boundary between private cognition and public conduct. The principle resonates deeply with the Indian legal doctrine that mens rea (guilty mind) alone is insufficient for criminal liability without accompanying actus reus (guilty act). The Indian legal framework upholds the sanctity of individual thought, recognising that while certain thoughts may be morally reprehensible, they do not warrant legal punishment unless manifested through unlawful actions. This balance preserves individual freedoms while maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system.
‘Freedom of thought’ in the advertising arena
The issue of freedom of thought is particularly pressing in the field of advertising, where marketers aim to bypass rational decision-making. As psychologists have noted, people remain largely unaware of the subtle psychological tactics used to influence them by marketing agencies.
Current regulations of marketing focus mainly on transparency and truthfulness of information served to consumers. However, FoT suggests a broader ethical obligation that is, protecting people from manipulation that undermines self-directed reasoning. This phenomenon mirrors how awareness of nicotine's addictive properties does not always curb a smoker's cravings. Such insights underscore the importance of educating the public about persuasive techniques used in digital environments.
Once society delineates the boundary between acceptable influence and undue manipulation, it prompts a critical inquiry: Should individuals possess an absolute right to mental autonomy, free from unauthorised interference? This question gains urgency as technologies increasingly possess the capability to subtly shape our thoughts and behaviours without our explicit consent. Establishing clear ethical and legal frameworks is essential to protect cognitive liberty in the digital age.
Technological design can support mental autonomy. Humane tech initiatives, privacy-preserving search engines, and tools that segment digital identities can help users maintain control over their cognitive environment. Legal reforms could establish protections for externalised thought processes like search histories or personal notes as integral aspects of mental privacy.
Importantly, safeguarding FoT is not just the duty of governments. Citizens, too, must recognise its value. Thinking critically is neither easy nor always comfortable. It requires effort, courage, and openness to uncertainty.
As noted, “Relatively few people want to think. Thinking troubles us; thinking tires us.” But the cost of neglecting this right may be far greater. If freedom of thought is eroded by invasive technologies, coercive platforms, or passive disinterest we risk losing not only our dignity and democracy, but our humanity itself. As we navigate the complexities of the digital age, we must ensure that the last refuge of freedom “the human mind” remains protected from prying eyes and manipulative hands.