"Police Spark Ethical Outcry Over Forced Brain-Scanning of Suspects"

This title condenses the core elements: the controversy ("ethical outcry"), the involuntary nature ("forced"), the technology ("brain-scanning"), and the subjects ("suspects"), while adhering to the 15-word limit.

A Brain on Trial: The Controversial Use of "Mind-Reading" Tech in Justice

In a 2008 case that blurred the lines between science and law, Aditi Sharma, 24, was accused of poisoning her fiancé. Despite her denial, Indian authorities turned to a contentious tool: Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature Profiling (BEOS). Dubbed "mind-reading" tech, BEOS analyzes brainwaves to detect familiarity with crime details, which some claim indicates guilt.

How BEOS Works

Developed in 1999 by neuroscientist Dr. C.R. Mukundan, BEOS uses EEG scans to measure brain responses to crime-related statements (e.g., "held the knife to his neck"). A reaction is interpreted as evidence of personal involvement. While supporters claim 90% accuracy, critics argue the tech lacks peer-reviewed validation and risks false accusations. India’s Directorate of Forensic Science notes a 5% error rate.

Image: A BEOS device with electrodes used to measure brain activity.

Legal and Ethical Concerns

In 2010, India’s Supreme Court ruled BEOS, along with polygraphs and narco-analysis, inadmissible without consent. Yet, reports suggest it’s still used under questionable circumstances. Neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga warns, “This work is shaky at best.” Human rights groups highlight risks of coerced confessions and privacy violations.

High-Profile Cases

• Surjaram: A 20-year-old accused of rape was exonerated after BEOS showed no signs of guilt.
• Abdul Wahid Shaikh: Cleared after 2006 Mumbai bombings despite repeated BEOS tests, raising concerns about reliability.

*Image: A courtroom, symbolizing the legal debate over BE