The Supreme Court has rejected a man's petition in which he alleged that his brain was being controlled by a machine.

The division bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah termed the petition as "bizarre''

The Court stated that there were no valid grounds for intervention.

The petitioner, a teacher, claimed that certain individuals had used a "human brain reading machinery" from the Central Forensic Scientific Laboratory (CFSL) in Hyderabad to manipulate his thoughts and actions. He sought a court order to deactivate the supposed device.

The case initially began in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, where the petitioner contended that the machine was being operated on him without his consent. In response, the CFSL and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a counter-affidavit, stating that no forensic examination had been conducted on the petitioner.

They further clarified that no machine had been used to monitor or control his brain. In November 2022, the High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that there was no merit to 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 unusual nature of the claim. However, rather than dismissing the petition outright, the Court directed the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) to engage with the petitioner in his native language to better understand his concerns.

Following the interaction, the SCLSC submitted a report to the Court, confirming that the petitioner's only 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.”