Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25

- Free Preparation Discussions

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?

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 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:

Submit Cancel

Son

1 day ago

Wait, so they said it was unconstitutional for that reason? That's surprising!

upvoted 0 times

...

Heike

6 days ago

Really? I thought it was just about privacy concerns.

upvoted 0 times

...

Antonio

11 days ago

Totally agree with that ruling!

upvoted 0 times

...

Lyndia

17 days ago

It was unconstitutional if it was used to gather information to discriminate against minorities.

upvoted 0 times

...

Noel

22 days 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

27 days 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

1 month ago

I remember discussing how the court emphasized individual rights, which could connect to option C regarding government services.

upvoted 0 times

...

Buck

1 month 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

...