IAPP CIPP/A Exam - 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

Abel

2 months ago

B seems off, it was more about privacy.

upvoted 0 times

...

Louis

3 months ago

Wait, are we sure it was about discrimination?

upvoted 0 times

...

Stephen

3 months ago

Totally agree, D is the right answer!

upvoted 0 times

...

Angelo

3 months ago

I thought it was just about access to services!

upvoted 0 times

...

Abel

3 months ago

It was about privacy rights and discrimination.

upvoted 0 times

...

Justine

4 months ago

I feel like the answer might be related to how the UID could be used to discriminate, which makes me lean towards D, but I could be wrong.

upvoted 0 times

...

Dean

4 months ago

I vaguely recall that the court emphasized the right to privacy, but I can't remember if it was linked to government services or something else.

upvoted 0 times

...

Teddy

4 months ago

I remember practicing a question similar to this, and I think it had to do with the misuse of data. Maybe it was option D?

upvoted 0 times

...

Ezekiel

4 months ago

I think the ruling was about privacy concerns, but I'm not sure if it was specifically about discrimination against minorities.

upvoted 0 times

...

Royal

5 months ago

I've got a strategy - I'll start by eliminating the options that don't seem relevant, then focus in on the most likely answer.

upvoted 0 times

...

Margarett

5 months ago

I'm a little confused by the wording of the question. I'll need to read it over a few times to make sure I understand what they're asking.

upvoted 0 times

...

Val

5 months ago

Okay, let's see. The key is understanding the context around the court's ruling on the Unique Identification Number requirement.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tenesha

5 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about the details of this Supreme Court case. Let me think it through carefully.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kristel

5 months ago

This question seems straightforward, I think I can handle it.

upvoted 0 times

...

Carlene

7 months 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

7 months ago

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

upvoted 0 times

...

Celia

7 months ago

B) It was necessary for proving citizenship.

upvoted 0 times

...

Malcolm

7 months ago

A) It was restricted to residents of India.

upvoted 0 times

...

Helga

8 months ago

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

upvoted 0 times

...

Dona

8 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

8 months ago

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

upvoted 0 times

...

Eva

8 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

7 months 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

7 months 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

8 months ago

I disagree, I believe the answer is A.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kirby

8 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

7 months ago

B) It was necessary for proving citizenship.

upvoted 0 times

...

Alyce

8 months ago

I agree, that seems like the most logical choice.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lauryn

8 months ago

A) It was restricted to residents of India.

upvoted 0 times

...

Cristy

8 months ago

I think the answer is D.

upvoted 0 times

...

Nickie

8 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

8 months ago

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

upvoted 0 times

...

Laquanda

8 months ago

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

upvoted 0 times

...

Darrel

8 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

...