MENU
In 2013-14, the Indian Supreme Court ruled in Puttaswamy v Union of India that requiring a Unique Identification Number was unconstitutional if what?
Suggested Answer: A
Get Premium CIPP/A Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
18 comments · newest first
WI
Winfred
1 month ago
I see your point. D does seem more comprehensive.
LY
Lynelle
1 month ago
Right! D covers the ethical side well.
AM
Amos
2 months ago
Still, the risk of misuse is high with C.
WI
Winfred
2 months ago
True, but what if it helps in service delivery?
LY
Lynelle
2 months ago
Exactly! D addresses privacy concerns too.
AM
Amos
2 months ago
But C could lead to exclusion. D feels more right.
WI
Winfred
2 months ago
I lean towards C. Government services shouldn't require it.
LY
Lynelle
3 months ago
Agreed! D makes sense. Protecting minorities is crucial.
AM
Amos
3 months ago
I think it's D. Discrimination is a big issue.
CA
Carman
3 months ago
I think it was also about protecting personal data rights.
SO
Son
3 months ago
Wait, so they said it was unconstitutional for that reason? That's surprising!
HE
Heike
3 months ago
Really? I thought it was just about privacy concerns.
AN
Antonio
3 months ago
Totally agree with that ruling!
LY
Lyndia
4 months ago
It was unconstitutional if it was used to gather information to discriminate against minorities.
NO
Noel
4 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.
CO
Cory
4 months ago
I feel like we practiced a question similar to this, and it was definitely about discrimination, so I would lean towards D.
AN
Annelle
4 months ago
I remember discussing how the court emphasized individual rights, which could connect to option C regarding government services.
BU
Buck
4 months ago
I think the ruling was about privacy concerns, so it might be related to option D, but I'm not entirely sure.