The rapid advancement of neurotechnology, from medical implants to consumer brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), presents unprecedented challenges to fundamental human rights. These technologies access, monitor, and even influence neural activity, generating “neurodata”, highly sensitive information revealing an individual’s thoughts, emotions, and mental states. This proliferation creates urgent threats to mental privacy, cognitive liberty, and mental integrity, rendering traditional data protection frameworks inadequate. This paper examines the emerging legal and ethical paradigm of “neurorights” designed to protect the human mind. It provides a conceptual foundation for cognitive liberty, mental privacy, and mental integrity. The research critically analyses and compares nascent global legal frameworks, contrasting Chile’s pioneering constitutional amendments and the EU’s robust, technology-neutral GDPR with the fragmented, state-level approach in the United States. Against this global backdrop, the paper evaluates India’s preparedness. It identifies a significant “judicial-legislative gap”: while India’s Constitution, as interpreted in landmark cases like K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, offers a strong implicit foundation for mental privacy, its statutory framework, mainly the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), 2023, critically fails to classify neurodata as sensitive. This omission, coupled with regulatory loopholes for consumer neuro-devices, leaves individuals vulnerable. The paper concludes by recommending a multi-pronged reform strategy for India, centred on amending the DPDPA, enacting a comprehensive standalone Neurotechnology Regulation Act, and establishing a specialised national oversight authority to safeguard cognitive freedom in the neurotechnology era.