The Supreme Court has dismissed a man’s petition in which he claimed his brain was controlled through a machine. Describing the petition as “bizarre,” a bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah said they could not find any grounds to interfere. The petitioner, a teacher, approached the court with allegations that certain individuals used a “human brain reading machinery” obtained from the Central Forensic Scientific Laboratory (CFSL) in Hyderabad to manipulate his brain. He sought a court order for the deactivation of this alleged device.
The case originally started in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, where the petitioner argued the machine was being operated on him without his consent. The CFSL and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) responded by submitting a counter-affidavit, saying no forensic examination had ever been conducted on the petitioner. The authorities clarified that no machine was used to monitor or control the petitioner’s brain. The High Court dismissed the petition in November 2022, saying there was no basis for the request.
Undeterred, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision. On September 27, 2024, the Supreme Court expressed its astonishment at the bizarre nature of the claim. But instead of dismissing the petition immediately, the Court directed the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) to interact with the petitioner in his native language to understand his concerns clearly.
After the interaction, the SCLSC submitted a report to the Court, confirming the petitioner’s sole request was for the deactivation of the alleged machine controlling his brain.
The Supreme Court, in its final ruling, found the claim to be without merit, observing, “This is the bizarre prayer(s) which has been made by the petitioner whose specific allegation is that there is some machine which is being used and operated at the hands of some persons, by which the ‘brain’ of the petitioner is being controlled. We see no scope or reason as to how we can interfere in this matter.”
The Supreme Court then dismissed the petition.