The term 'Neuro-Scientific evidence' which involves the functioning of the brain or the use of neuroimages as an, Evidence when an accused person is mentally ill or their incapacity can be proven with the help of this Neuro-Scientific evidence. The contemporary necessity in this evidence is the most technical advancements in our criminal justice system still there is implementation of new forms of law and this neuroscience is one among them. This is still a new practice in India, about the understanding brain functions, the mental illness and mainly implications of the ethics and public policy.

This is still a new practice in India, about the understanding brain functions, the mental illness and mainly implications of the ethics and public policy. specific case relevance, precedents should be mentioned, expert testimony and interpretation and people the court system should accept and awareness should be made. The neuroscience evolution in the criminal justice system should be set up to answer a lots questions and these two science and law field should be approached correctly.

Introduction:
Neuro-Scientific evidence which was started during the time of twentieth century. But this was a concept of EEG (Electroencephalogram) which is used to evaluate the brains electrical behavior in the year 1940's this was used in the case for a defendant with epilepsy (sudden alteration of behavior due to temporary changes in the electrical functioning of brain).

As a result, the scientific development neuroscience which has been developed into an Evidence so it will be helpful for the defendant side to make the accused to escape and then for the prosecution side it will be a difficult for the emergence of this new concept. This should be carefully scrutinized because the guilty will go free and the innocent will suffer.

The judges and the court system or not well aware of these terms it will be a task for every jury to give judgements by analyzing and formulating judgements and reviewing the evidence and there is lots of hazards to prove. By this research despite all the problems and difficulties the Neuro-Scientific system can make changes from the current system for this anti-social behavior in the society.

Biological Positivism:

This theory which was coined by the Cesare Lombroso (Italian prison psychiatrist) in the 19th century. This theory which clearly states about that they are "born criminals" and Lombroso who tells about the appearance of the killers when he was in the prison, like sloppy foreheads and fat chins and by the recognition of the murderers he states them as criminals. And that what made them to be a criminal what are the things that affected them mentally and how that person personally done this murder and on what reason it had been done all these were discussed by Cesare Lombroso in this theory. And the brains of the prisoners were not fully developed. He also stated that involvement in criminal activity and they are having the biological characters which made them to be born criminals according to Lombroso.

Neuro-Scientific Evidence In The Indian Court System:

To make this possible and understandable in the Indian court system were there should be precedent case laws and also there should be lots of improvement in this particular topic.

Precedent case laws:

1. Ram Singh and others v state of Delhi:
   In this case, the Neuro-Scientific evidence is inadmissible due to the violation of self- incrimination article 20(3) in constitution of India. And there was a lack of reliability in the technique. The Delhi high court rejected the use of narcoanalysis and other Neuro-Scientific evidence in this case.
    
2. Ritesh Sinha V State of Uttar Pradesh:
   In this case, the Allahabad high court clearly states that the relevance and reliability of the technique in narcoanalysis is allowed ensuring that there should be strict compliance should be followed along with safeguards procedure. Brain mapping is considered as corroborative evidence in this case.

By the precedent we can clearly state that court which is following strict scrutiny, also it notifies about the standards of the test and scientific validity and whether it comes under the constitutional rights or not this will be analyzed by the court. And also its important to follow the guidelines specifically denoting to the admissibility of the evidence, relevance and reliability and probative value in the Neuro-Scientific evidence and even legal precedent and legislative development is still needed in this.

Constitutional Approach:

In the Indian jurisprudence that one famous legal precedent case which is related to the right to privacy is K.S. PUTTASWAMY V UNION OF INDIA. The term informational privacy which not only deals with individual body but also their mind it's a right to protect the freedom of one's mind also. And that's why scientific technology which interferes with the freedom of rights from one person and then it is violation of one person's privacy.

Article 21 of the constitution which is related to the informational privacy to the right to self-determination. In England and Wales court of appeal held that privacy encapsulates the psychological integrity of the person. And it clearly states that any kind of test or other related to the confession of that particular accused person should not violate his/her fundamental rights.

Article 20 (3) right to self-incrimination violation of this article in the Neuro-Scientific evidence was clearly stated in this case name SELVI V STATE OF KARNATAKA the supreme court states about the constitutional validity of various technique like the brain mapping or BEAP (brain electrical activation profile), polygraph test, narcoanalysis these can be considered as Neuro-Scientific evidence in the court. And these above mention test which is making the testimonial confession and violating the right against the self-incrimination article 20(3) and the right to life and personal liberty article 21 of the constitution.

The court observed that both the article 21 and 20(3) should be interacted with each other and further it states that inducing the drugs and getting the psychological responses from them and this is violating the mental privacy of that person without the consent of that person. By the forcible testimonial responses which is not provided under any statute or legal provision and there is no reasonable to function the tests during the Neuro-Scientific investigation. Then the court ordered that these tests could not be admissible without the valid consent of the accused.

The person who is conducting the test should know about the importance of personal autonomy the accused whether the accused person is choosing between remaining silent or speaking up to confess is only their privacy and we cannot forcefully get the testimonial confession from by using the neuroscience related tests. There should not be any other person to interfere with them and especially during the criminal charges and penalties.

Case Law Analysis In Foreign Countries:

In 1981, John Hinckley's attempted assassination of president Reagan this is one of the highest profile cases which is related to the neuroscience in a criminal trial. And Hinckley's defense team clearly states about the computed Tomography (CT) scan and they have argued that he had suffered from schizophrenia, and they claimed that he was not guilty because of that he is insanity.

People v Weinstein (1992) Weinstein quickly admitted to the charge of second-degree murder, which he received after strangling his wife and hurling her from their Manhattan apartment's 12th story. His attorneys ordered positron emission tomography (PET) scans because they thought it was strange that Weinstein would have such little regret for his crimes.

Weinstein's defense team used his PET scans during the trial to bolster their theory that his brain function was impaired as a result of an arachnoid cyst. As a result, they argued that the defendant lacked the necessary mental state to be charged with a crime. Later on, Weinstein was permitted to enter a guilty plea to the lower charge of manslaughter.
The regulations controlling the introduction of scientific evidence in federal trials were modified just one year after Weinstein.

The Neuro-Scientific evidence was used in criminal cases in the US, Canada, the Netherlands, England, and Wales between 2005 and 2012. He summarized previous research and stated that, in all examined countries, the use of Neuro-Scientific evidence has grown at comparable rates. From 2005 to 2010, there has been a steep increasing slope that levels out. However, compared to other jurisdictions, the total number of US cases utilizing Neuro-Scientific evidence has been noticeably higher.

Farahan (2016) conducted a review of US cases from 2005 to 2012 and found that in 1585 criminal case judicial opinions, the defense had brought up the use of genetic or Neuro-Scientific evidence. There were 250 court rulings in 2012 alone when the criminal defendant contended, either successfully or unsuccessfully that what they did was "made by their brain."

In a different investigation, Farahan found that in 2012, 25% of death penalty prosecutions and 5% of murder trials included genetic and Neuro-Scientific evidence (Farahan, 2016). In fact, such material was particularly referenced in 15% of the 1585 judicial judgments that were analyze. However, it should be highlighted that a small percentage of criminal charges proceed to trial and result in guilty verdicts.

Only a small percentage of these cases make it to the appeal court and produce written opinions. Consequently, it is possible that this collection of court rulings is not typical of all cases, or even all cases that get to trial.

The impact of expert testimony from neuroscientists on prison terms for those convicted of sexual assault on women. Interestingly, rather than serving as juries, study participants were told to simulate judges. The defendant had a "large Tumor in a part of the brain involved in impulse control," according to neurologists who performed "MRI scans of the defendant's brain," which may account for his impulsive criminal behavior, participants in the Neuro-Scientific expert testimony conditions were informed.

In the control condition, participants were informed that the defendant had an impulse control disorder, which could account for his behavior, after psychologists had conducted "a series of clinical interviews with the defendant" (note that these conditions differ not only in terms of the neuroscience content, but also in terms of whether the defendant suffers from an impulse control issue or a malignancy).

Half of the participants in both scenarios were informed that the defendant's illness had been treated, putting him at a low risk of being dangerous in the future. The other half were informed that the ailment was incurable, putting him at a high risk of becoming dangerous in the future. In addition, questions concerning the defendant's moral culpability, moral wrongness, blameworthiness, desert of punishment, self-control, and free choice were posed to the participants.

Challenges In Neuro Scientific Evidences:

There are challenges faced in the neuro-scientific evidence in the Indian legal framework:

1. Scientific Validity and Reliability:
   Ensuring the scientific validity and dependability of Neuro-Scientific findings is one of the main concerns. Concerns about the precision, repeatability, and peer review of Neuro-Scientific methods may surface. Every neuroimaging technique may have limitations and be imprecise, casting doubt on its validity as proof. Prior to admitting these procedures, the court must assess their legitimacy and scientific foundation.
    
2. Interpretation and Expert Testimony:
   Expert interpretation is frequently necessary for Neuro-Scientific findings, which raises the risk of misunderstanding and subjectivity bias. It can be challenging to come to a consensus when various experts use the same evidence to draw different conclusions. It's To guarantee the competency and trustworthiness of the experts giving testimony, it is essential to take into account their credentials, experience, and training. Judges and other legal professionals must have specialized training in order to be able to properly analyze and evaluate Neuro-Scientific information.
    
3. Privacy and Consent:
   Privacy, informed permission, and possible rights breaches are among the ethical and legal issues that are brought up by the gathering and use of Neuro-Scientific data. Neuro-Scientific methods entail obtaining and examining private data regarding an brain activity, emotional states, and personality traits of an individual. It is imperative to implement measures to safeguard the privacy and confidentiality of this data, guaranteeing informed consent and averting any potential misuse or illegal access.
    
4. Adaptation of Legal Standards:
   It might be necessary to modify the current Indian legal system, notably the Indian Evidence Act, to take into account improvements in Neuro-Scientific research. The Act may not specifically address Neuro-Scientific evidence because it was created long before such evidence emerged. Discuss its appraisal or admissibility. It is imperative to evaluate and implement current legislative frameworks in light of Neuro-Scientific data, taking into account the rapidly advancing state of science and the particular needs of this domain. Determining the significance, probative value, and particular procedural issues of Neuro-Scientific evidence are all part of this process.

It's critical to strike a balance between the growth of science and the defence of legal norms. It is important to give serious thought to how to modify legal rules to take Neuro-Scientific knowledge into account while maintaining justice, consistency, and respect for individual rights. Multidisciplinary the creation of rules, guidelines, and standards that address the difficulties related to the admission of Neuro-Scientific evidence can be facilitated by partnerships between legal and scientific specialists. This partnership encourages the judicial system in India to use neuroscience in a more knowledgeable and efficient manner.

Practical Implications:

Acknowledging the pragmatic consequences of Neuro-Scientific research, legislators, judges, and attorneys can collaborate to guarantee that its incorporation is equitable, dependable, and consistent with the values of justice. This cooperative strategy leads to a more. The Indian judiciary is knowledgeable and proficient, able to protect the rights of those engaged in legal proceedings while also taking advantage of the advantages of neuroscience.

• Legal Practitioners:
  In order to proficiently handle the incorporation of Neuro-Scientific information, attorneys must acquaint themselves with the fundamental concepts, approaches, and constraints of this domain. Gaining knowledge of pertinent Neuro-Scientific ideas and remaining current with developments will allow them to evaluate the admissibility, dependability, and probative importance of Neuro-Scientific data in their arguments. Working together with specialists and neuroscientists can help attorneys prepare and deliver arguments based on Neuro-Scientific findings.

 
• Judges:
  Judges are crucial in determining whether Neuro-Scientific data is admissible and how much weight it has. To evaluate the scientific validity and dependability of such evidence, they should have a basic comprehension of neuroscience principles and procedures. Particularized programs for learning about neuroscience and its applications in the legal field can assist judges in gaining the requisite knowledge. In order to help the court make well-informed decisions, judges need also make sure that expert witnesses offering Neuro-Scientific testimony have the necessary credentials and provide objective, truthful testimony.
   
• Policies:
  It is the duty of Indian judicial policymakers to modify legal norms to take Neuro-Scientific research advances into account. They are able to set rules and procedures for the assessment of Neuro-Scientific evidence and its admissibility. The ethical ramifications, privacy issues, and consent requirements related to the gathering and use of Neuro-Scientific data should be taken into account by policymakers. Working together with specialists in the legal and scientific domains can help legislators create laws that combine protecting individual rights within the Indian legal system with scientific discoveries.

1. Interdisciplinary Collaborations:
   It is imperative to foster interdisciplinary collaboration among judges, neuroscientists, legal practitioners, and policymakers. Collaborations like these improve knowledge of the legal and scientific ramifications of incorporating Neuro-Scientific evidence. It makes it easier to create standards, best practices, and recommendations for the acceptance, assessment, and interpretation of Neuro-Scientific data. Routine conversations, conferences, and workshops involving stakeholders from different fields foster a better understanding of the practical implications of Neuro-Scientific evidence, promoting informed decision-making in the Indian judicial system.

Neuro-Scientific Evidence  Future:
Suggestions and Recommendations for Effective Integration of Neuro-Scientific Evidence in the Indian Legal System:

1. Legislations and Guidelines:
   • To address the admissibility and assessment of Neuro-Scientific evidence within the Indian legal system, create new laws or change those that already exist. This can ensure that such material is handled with uniformity and clarity by developing protocols or standards that specify the requirements for Neuro-Scientific data to be accepted. These recommendations ought to take into account elements like probative value, relevance, scientific validity, and reliability.
     
     Inform permission, procedural precautions, privacy issues, and ethical considerations should all be covered. Provide a structure for assessing expert witnesses who are giving testimony based on neuroscience. Qualifications, experience, and adherence to professional standards should all be required. Guidelines can help guarantee that expert witnesses are qualified and offer trustworthy testimony to support the court's decision-making.
      
2. Collaboration and Training:
   • Encourage multidisciplinary partnerships between neuroscientists and attorneys. Promote collaborative research, educational initiatives, and seminars to cultivate reciprocal comprehending and closing the knowledge gap between the disciplines. The combined knowledge and experience of neuroscientists and attorneys can be improved by this partnership. Give the judges and legal experts additional training on neurobiology and its applications within the realm of law. This can include seminars, workshops, and ongoing legal education courses that cover the theories, practices, and assessment of Neuro-Scientific evidence in the field of neuroscience. Improved comprehension among attorneys will result in better-informed choices.
      
3. Expert Panels and Scientific Advisory Committee:
   • Form scientific advisory boards or expert panels made up of neuroscientists, ethicists, and legal specialists. These committees can offer advice on new developments in neuroscience, assess the scientific viability of Neuro-Scientific methods, and offer guidance on creating standards and best practices for incorporating Neuro-Scientific data. Their knowledge can help guide policy choices and guarantee that the law keeps up with scientific discoveries.
      
4. Specific-Case Assessment:
   • Promote case-specific evaluations to ascertain the probative value, relevance, and trustworthiness of Neuro-Scientific data. Independent experts may be appointed by courts to evaluate the trustworthiness and scientific validity of Neuro-Scientific methods provided as proof. This can give the court a dispassionate assessment and support it in reaching wise conclusions.
      
5. Evolution and Review:
   Regularly review and update the legal standards and guidelines about Neuro-Scientific evidence. As the field of neuroscience advances, it is important to keep pace with new developments, ensuring that legal standards remain relevant, fair, and consistent with scientific understanding.

Ongoing evaluation and collaboration between legal and specialists in science will aid in the development of the incorporation of Neuro-Scientific data into the Indian judicial system. Through the use of these ideas and proposals, the successful integration of Neuro-Scientific evidence is admissible in Indian courts. This will result in better decision-making, increased equity, and better outcomes for cases using Neuro-Scientific evidence in court.

Conclusion:
The use of neuroscience in Courtrooms even though is witnessed is not prevalent due to the reason that there is not sufficient large-scale research that have been conducted in the area. The scope of biological factors inducing criminal behavior is still a sufficiently tested fact.

The use of neuroscience cannot be fruitful if it is not accurate or reliable. The scientific validity of Neuro-Scientific findings must be ensured, subjectivity and misinterpretation must be avoided, and the ethical and legal ramifications of data collecting and privacy must be carefully considered.

In order to summon these obstacles, attorneys, judges, policymakers, and neuroscientists work together to establish rules, protocols, and standards that achieve a balance between legal principles and scientific breakthroughs. The equitable and just incorporation of Neuro-Scientific information into the Indian legal system necessitates a nuanced and balanced approach.

To guarantee that the rights of people involved in legal procedures are respected and that decisions are founded on trustworthy and pertinent evidence, it is necessary to conduct ongoing study, implement legal reform, and collaborate across disciplinary boundaries. There should be more and more interpretations, review, relevance, reliability, and no violation even if he /she is an accused their rights should not be violated.

References:

• Jus corpus law journal, Arjun Nair, Neuroscience in the courtroom: unveiling the mind's secrets for just verdicts, https://www.juscorpus.com
• https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org
• https://vidhilegalpolicy.in
• https://cognitiveresearch journal.springeropen.com

Also Read:

• Neuroscientific Evidence In Courtroom Symposium