IAPP Exam CIPP/A Topic 2 Question 82 Discussion

Actual exam question for IAPP's CIPP/A exam

Question #: 82
Topic #: 2

In 2013-14, the Indian Supreme Court ruled in Puttaswamy v Union of India that requiring a Unique Identification Number was unconstitutional if what?

AIt was restricted to residents of India.

BIt was necessary for proving citizenship.

CIt was required in order to obtain government services.

DIt was used to gather information to discriminate against minorities.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: A

by Clarinda at Jul 04, 2025, 04:37 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium CIPP/A Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Carlene

20 days ago

Wait, is the answer 'All of the above'? The court really didn't want the government to use this ID for anything, did they?

upvoted 0 times

Danilo

6 days ago

C) It was required in order to obtain government services.

upvoted 0 times

...

Celia

9 days ago

B) It was necessary for proving citizenship.

upvoted 0 times

...

Malcolm

11 days ago

A) It was restricted to residents of India.

upvoted 0 times

...

Helga

23 days ago

I agree with Nobuko, C seems like the most logical answer.

upvoted 0 times

...

Dona

1 months ago

I'm going with B. The court said it couldn't be used to prove citizenship, so that's gotta be the right answer.

upvoted 0 times

...

Nobuko

1 months ago

I think the answer is C, because it makes sense for government services.

upvoted 0 times

...

Eva

1 months ago

Haha, imagine if the court ruled that the ID had to be restricted to just the residents. That would be so weird, like only some people get to be officially recognized.

upvoted 0 times

Natalie

9 days ago

In 2013-14, the Indian Supreme Court ruled in Puttaswamy v Union of India that requiring a Unique Identification Number was unconstitutional if what?

upvoted 0 times

...

Dana

10 days ago

In 2013-14, the Indian Supreme Court ruled in Puttaswamy v Union of India that requiring a Unique Identification Number was unconstitutional if what?

upvoted 0 times

...

Kenneth

1 months ago

I disagree, I believe the answer is A.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kirby

1 months ago

I think it's C. The court said the ID couldn't be required to access government services. That makes the most sense to me.

upvoted 0 times

Charolette

16 days ago

B) It was necessary for proving citizenship.

upvoted 0 times

...

Alyce

27 days ago

I agree, that seems like the most logical choice.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lauryn

28 days ago

A) It was restricted to residents of India.

upvoted 0 times

...

Cristy

2 months ago

I think the answer is D.

upvoted 0 times

...

Nickie

2 months ago

Option D seems like the right answer. The court ruled that the ID can't be used to discriminate against minorities, right?

upvoted 0 times

Audria

27 days ago

Laquanda: Absolutely, everyone should be treated equally under the law.

upvoted 0 times

...

Laquanda

1 months ago

User 2: That's good to know. It's important to protect the rights of all citizens.

upvoted 0 times

...

Darrel

1 months ago

User 1: Yes, you are correct. The Supreme Court ruled that the Unique Identification Number cannot be used to discriminate against minorities.

upvoted 0 times

...