Recently, the Supreme Court dismissed a unique petition filed by an individual claiming that his brain was being controlled by others through a machine. A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah found no merit in the petition, remarking, “We see no scope or reason as to how we can interfere in this matter”.
The petitioner initially approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court, alleging that certain individuals had acquired a “human brain reading machinery” from the Central Forensic Scientific Laboratory (CFSL) in Hyderabad, which they purportedly used to control his mind. He sought a court order to deactivate the alleged device. The CFSL and CBI responded with a counter-affidavit, asserting that no forensic examination had ever been conducted on the petitioner, a teacher and that the alleged device did not exist. Following this response, the High Court dismissed the petition in November 2022, where the petitioner represented himself.
Undeterred, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court with a Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court’s decision. On September 27, 2024, the Supreme Court, surprised by the nature of the claims, instructed the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) to arrange a meeting with the petitioner in his native language to better understand his concerns.
Upon receiving the SCLSC’s report, the Supreme Court bench reviewed the petitioner’s specific claim that his brain was allegedly being manipulated by a device operated by certain individuals. The petitioner believed this device, a so-called “Human brain reading machinery”, had been obtained from CFSL, Hyderabad, and was used without his consent or knowledge to control his thoughts and actions. The Supreme Court found the claim unusual and without any credible basis. The Court noted that the petition failed to provide any concrete evidence of the existence of such a device or any indication that CFSL, or any other institution, possessed or employed technology capable of influencing or reading human thoughts in this manner. The Supreme Court emphasized that the legal system is grounded in factual evidence and tangible claims, and petitions must demonstrate a rational basis for judicial review. Given the lack of substantive evidence, the Court questioned how it could justifiably intervene or issue orders based on unsupported and extraordinary allegations.
Additionally, the Court highlighted that judicial resources must be preserved for matters involving legal or constitutional rights that can be substantiated with proof. In the absence of credible evidence or legal foundation, the Court concluded there was no feasible remedy or relief it could provide in this case. Consequently, the bench dismissed the petition, underlining the importance of a rational basis in legal petitions and the responsibility of the Courts to allocate their resources effectively.
The Court’s final remarks described the petition as “bizarre” and emphasized that it lacked any realistic scope for intervention, thereby concluding that no grounds for judicial action existed.
Picture Source :
