Certified Information Privacy Professional – Asia (CIPP/A) — Question 34

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

Answer options

• 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.

Correct answer: A

Explanation

The correct answer is A, as the court found that requiring a Unique Identification Number was unconstitutional when it was restricted to residents of India. Options B, C, and D do not reflect the court's ruling, which specifically addressed residency as a key issue.