U.S. Independence Day Deal! Unlock 25% OFF Today – Limited-Time Offer - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

IAPP CIPP/A Exam - Topic 4 Question 97 Discussion

In 2013-14, the Indian Supreme Court ruled in Puttaswamy v Union of India that requiring a Unique Identification Number was unconstitutional if what?
A) It was restricted to residents of India.
B) It was necessary for proving citizenship.
C) It was required in order to obtain government services.
D) It was used to gather information to discriminate against minorities.

IAPP CIPP/A Exam - Topic 4 Question 97 Discussion

Actual exam question for IAPP's CIPP/A exam
Question #: 97
Topic #: 4
[All CIPP/A Questions]

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

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

by Jovita at Jun 17, 2026, 05:39 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

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

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel

Currently there are no comments in this discussion, be the first to comment!


Save Cancel