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?
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?
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 it was required in order to obtain government services. The ruling stated that making Aadhaar mandatory for accessing government services violated the right to privacy and could potentially exclude those who were unable or unwilling to obtain the identification number.
Should be B, if it was necessary for proving citizenship.
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