BlackFriday 2024! 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 Exam CIPP-A Topic 1 Question 64 Discussion

Actual exam question for IAPP's CIPP-A exam
Question #: 64
Topic #: 1
[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 Alexia at Aug 27, 2024, 04:04 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

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

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel
Hayley
2 months ago
I'm just gonna go with D and hope I get partial credit. Anything that smells of discrimination is a big no-no in my book. Nice to see the court taking a stand on that.
upvoted 0 times
...
Huey
2 months ago
Well, as my grandma used to say, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Sounds like the court was trying to keep the government from breaking things with this national ID business.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mozell
2 months ago
Hmm, I'm going with C. If the government is forcing people to have a national ID just to access basic services, that's a big problem. The court was smart to shut that down.
upvoted 0 times
Jeffrey
14 days ago
It's a good thing the Supreme Court took a stand against using national IDs to control access to services.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lindsay
1 months ago
I think the ruling was necessary to protect people's rights and prevent discrimination.
upvoted 0 times
...
Aide
1 months ago
I agree, it's important that access to government services is not restricted by a national ID requirement.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Floyd
2 months ago
I think B is the right answer. Citizenship is a fundamental right, and the court was right to rule against making a national ID required for that.
upvoted 0 times
Justine
15 days ago
The ruling in Puttaswamy v Union of India was a significant step in protecting privacy and rights of individuals.
upvoted 0 times
...
Orville
19 days ago
It's important to ensure that government services are accessible to all, regardless of having a national ID.
upvoted 0 times
...
Phil
1 months ago
I think the Supreme Court made the right decision in protecting citizens' rights.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sarah
1 months ago
I agree, citizenship should not be dependent on having a Unique Identification Number.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Dalene
2 months ago
Option D is clearly the correct answer. The government should not be using a national ID system to gather information and discriminate against minorities. That's a blatant violation of privacy and human rights.
upvoted 0 times
Gladis
2 months ago
Yes, privacy and human rights should always be protected, regardless of the circumstances.
upvoted 0 times
...
Emelda
2 months ago
I agree, using a national ID system to discriminate is unacceptable.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Pearlene
2 months ago
I agree with Celestine, C seems like the most logical answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Celestine
2 months ago
I think the answer is C, because it makes sense for government services.
upvoted 0 times
...
Allene
3 months ago
I disagree, I believe the answer is A.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tamra
3 months ago
I think the answer is D.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel