Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - 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
Lynelle
Right! D covers the ethical side well.
upvoted 0 times
...
Amos
5 days ago
Still, the risk of misuse is high with C.
upvoted 0 times
...
Winfred
10 days ago
True, but what if it helps in service delivery?
upvoted 0 times
...
Lynelle
15 days ago
Exactly! D addresses privacy concerns too.
upvoted 0 times
...
Amos
20 days ago
But C could lead to exclusion. D feels more right.
upvoted 0 times
...
Winfred
26 days ago
I lean towards C. Government services shouldn't require it.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lynelle
1 month ago
Agreed! D makes sense. Protecting minorities is crucial.
upvoted 0 times
...
Amos
1 month ago
I think it's D. Discrimination is a big issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carman
1 month ago
I think it was also about protecting personal data rights.
upvoted 0 times
...
Son
2 months ago
Wait, so they said it was unconstitutional for that reason? That's surprising!
upvoted 0 times
...
Heike
2 months ago
Really? I thought it was just about privacy concerns.
upvoted 0 times
...
Antonio
2 months ago
Totally agree with that ruling!
upvoted 0 times
...
Lyndia
2 months ago
It was unconstitutional if it was used to gather information to discriminate against minorities.
upvoted 0 times
...
Noel
2 months ago
I'm a bit confused; I thought it was about proving citizenship, but now I can't recall if that was a key point in the case.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cory
2 months ago
I feel like we practiced a question similar to this, and it was definitely about discrimination, so I would lean towards D.
upvoted 0 times
...
Annelle
3 months ago
I remember discussing how the court emphasized individual rights, which could connect to option C regarding government services.
upvoted 0 times
...
Buck
3 months ago
I think the ruling was about privacy concerns, so it might be related to option D, but I'm not entirely sure.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel