Get Unlimited Contributor Access to the all ExamTopics Exams!
Take advantage of PDF Files for 1000+ Exams along with community discussions and pass IT Certification Exams Easily.
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?
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.
Answer : B
This case was initiated through a petition filed by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court in relation to the Aadhaar Project, which was spearheaded by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). The Aadhaar number was a 12-digit identification number issued by the UIDAI to the residents of India. The Aadhaar project was linked with several welfare schemes, with a view to streamline the process of service delivery and remove false beneficiaries.
The Court held that using Aadhaar for the purpose of welfare schemes was constitutional, and upheld the mandatory linking of Aadhaar with PAN cards. The Aadhaar Act does not record the caste, religion, race, etc, of individuals, thus ensuring that these demographics are not used to discriminate among citizens
Should be B, if it was necessary for proving citizenship.
upvoted 1 times
...
Log in to ExamTopics
Sign in:
Community vote distribution
A (35%)
C (25%)
B (20%)
Other
Most Voted
A voting comment increases the vote count for the chosen answer by one.
Upvoting a comment with a selected answer will also increase the vote count towards that answer by one.
So if you see a comment that you already agree with, you can upvote it instead of posting a new comment.
Bhimesh
1 month agorhyst1921
1 month, 1 week ago