Question Description
The report by a German cybersecurity firm that medical details of millions of Indian patients were leaked and are freely available on the Internet is worrying. The firm listed 1.02 million studies of Indian patients and 121 million medical images, including CT Scans, MRIs and even photos of the patients, as being available. Such information has the potential to be mined for deeper data analysis and for creating profiles that could be used for social engineering, phishing and online identity theft, among other practices that thrive on the availability of such data on the Darknet - restricted computer networks which exchange information using means such as peerto-peer file sharing. Public data leaks have been quite common in India - from government websites enabling the download of Aadhaar numbers to electoral data rolls being downloaded in bulk, among others. Unlike the data protection regulations in place in the European Union and in the U.S., India still lacks a comprehensive legal framework to protect data privacy.The Draft Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 is still to be tabled but could enable protection of privacy. The draft Bill follows up on the provisions recommended by Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee in 2018. The committee sought to codify the relationship between individuals and firms/state institutions as one between "data principals" (whose information is collected) and "data fiduciaries" (those processing the data) so that privacy is safeguarded by design. While the 2019 version of the Bill seeks to retain the intent and many of the recommendations of the Justice Srikrishna committee, it has also diluted a few provisions. For example, while the Bill tasks the fiduciary to seek the consent in a free, informed, specific, clear form (and which is capable of being withdrawn later) from the principal, it has removed the proviso from the 2018 version of the Bill that said selling or transferring sensitive personal data by the fiduciary to a third party is an offence. There are other substantive issues with the Bill pertaining to the situations when state institutions are granted exemption from seeking consent from principals to process or obtain their information. Yet, considering the manner in which public data are being stored and used by both the state and private entities, a comprehensive Data Protection Act is the need of the hour.Q. Where there is a clash between two Fundamental Rights, the right which would advance the public morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of court. M was suffering from AIDS and was undergoing treatment at a City Hospital.Chief Medical Officer of the Hospital demanded 50 Lakhs from M for keeping the secret. M denied. Chief Medical Officer issued a news bulletin and named X as an AIDS patient. This information was misused by business rivals of M for defaming him. M filed a suit against the Hospital and Chief Medical Officer.Choose the correct option:a)Action of the defendants is justified as it was required in public interest to reveal the medical condition of M.b)Action of defendants is justified as the right of public to know is the fundamental right of privacy of M.c)Action of defendants is not justified, as the information was not revealed in public interest and violates the fundamental right to privacy.d)Action of defendants is not justified, as it violates right to life and liberty of M.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The report by a German cybersecurity firm that medical details of millions of Indian patients were leaked and are freely available on the Internet is worrying. The firm listed 1.02 million studies of Indian patients and 121 million medical images, including CT Scans, MRIs and even photos of the patients, as being available. Such information has the potential to be mined for deeper data analysis and for creating profiles that could be used for social engineering, phishing and online identity theft, among other practices that thrive on the availability of such data on the Darknet - restricted computer networks which exchange information using means such as peerto-peer file sharing. Public data leaks have been quite common in India - from government websites enabling the download of Aadhaar numbers to electoral data rolls being downloaded in bulk, among others. Unlike the data protection regulations in place in the European Union and in the U.S., India still lacks a comprehensive legal framework to protect data privacy.The Draft Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 is still to be tabled but could enable protection of privacy. The draft Bill follows up on the provisions recommended by Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee in 2018. The committee sought to codify the relationship between individuals and firms/state institutions as one between "data principals" (whose information is collected) and "data fiduciaries" (those processing the data) so that privacy is safeguarded by design. While the 2019 version of the Bill seeks to retain the intent and many of the recommendations of the Justice Srikrishna committee, it has also diluted a few provisions. For example, while the Bill tasks the fiduciary to seek the consent in a free, informed, specific, clear form (and which is capable of being withdrawn later) from the principal, it has removed the proviso from the 2018 version of the Bill that said selling or transferring sensitive personal data by the fiduciary to a third party is an offence. There are other substantive issues with the Bill pertaining to the situations when state institutions are granted exemption from seeking consent from principals to process or obtain their information. Yet, considering the manner in which public data are being stored and used by both the state and private entities, a comprehensive Data Protection Act is the need of the hour.Q. Where there is a clash between two Fundamental Rights, the right which would advance the public morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of court. M was suffering from AIDS and was undergoing treatment at a City Hospital.Chief Medical Officer of the Hospital demanded 50 Lakhs from M for keeping the secret. M denied. Chief Medical Officer issued a news bulletin and named X as an AIDS patient. This information was misused by business rivals of M for defaming him. M filed a suit against the Hospital and Chief Medical Officer.Choose the correct option:a)Action of the defendants is justified as it was required in public interest to reveal the medical condition of M.b)Action of defendants is justified as the right of public to know is the fundamental right of privacy of M.c)Action of defendants is not justified, as the information was not revealed in public interest and violates the fundamental right to privacy.d)Action of defendants is not justified, as it violates right to life and liberty of M.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The report by a German cybersecurity firm that medical details of millions of Indian patients were leaked and are freely available on the Internet is worrying. The firm listed 1.02 million studies of Indian patients and 121 million medical images, including CT Scans, MRIs and even photos of the patients, as being available. Such information has the potential to be mined for deeper data analysis and for creating profiles that could be used for social engineering, phishing and online identity theft, among other practices that thrive on the availability of such data on the Darknet - restricted computer networks which exchange information using means such as peerto-peer file sharing. Public data leaks have been quite common in India - from government websites enabling the download of Aadhaar numbers to electoral data rolls being downloaded in bulk, among others. Unlike the data protection regulations in place in the European Union and in the U.S., India still lacks a comprehensive legal framework to protect data privacy.The Draft Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 is still to be tabled but could enable protection of privacy. The draft Bill follows up on the provisions recommended by Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee in 2018. The committee sought to codify the relationship between individuals and firms/state institutions as one between "data principals" (whose information is collected) and "data fiduciaries" (those processing the data) so that privacy is safeguarded by design. While the 2019 version of the Bill seeks to retain the intent and many of the recommendations of the Justice Srikrishna committee, it has also diluted a few provisions. For example, while the Bill tasks the fiduciary to seek the consent in a free, informed, specific, clear form (and which is capable of being withdrawn later) from the principal, it has removed the proviso from the 2018 version of the Bill that said selling or transferring sensitive personal data by the fiduciary to a third party is an offence. There are other substantive issues with the Bill pertaining to the situations when state institutions are granted exemption from seeking consent from principals to process or obtain their information. Yet, considering the manner in which public data are being stored and used by both the state and private entities, a comprehensive Data Protection Act is the need of the hour.Q. Where there is a clash between two Fundamental Rights, the right which would advance the public morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of court. M was suffering from AIDS and was undergoing treatment at a City Hospital.Chief Medical Officer of the Hospital demanded 50 Lakhs from M for keeping the secret. M denied. Chief Medical Officer issued a news bulletin and named X as an AIDS patient. This information was misused by business rivals of M for defaming him. M filed a suit against the Hospital and Chief Medical Officer.Choose the correct option:a)Action of the defendants is justified as it was required in public interest to reveal the medical condition of M.b)Action of defendants is justified as the right of public to know is the fundamental right of privacy of M.c)Action of defendants is not justified, as the information was not revealed in public interest and violates the fundamental right to privacy.d)Action of defendants is not justified, as it violates right to life and liberty of M.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The report by a German cybersecurity firm that medical details of millions of Indian patients were leaked and are freely available on the Internet is worrying. The firm listed 1.02 million studies of Indian patients and 121 million medical images, including CT Scans, MRIs and even photos of the patients, as being available. Such information has the potential to be mined for deeper data analysis and for creating profiles that could be used for social engineering, phishing and online identity theft, among other practices that thrive on the availability of such data on the Darknet - restricted computer networks which exchange information using means such as peerto-peer file sharing. Public data leaks have been quite common in India - from government websites enabling the download of Aadhaar numbers to electoral data rolls being downloaded in bulk, among others. Unlike the data protection regulations in place in the European Union and in the U.S., India still lacks a comprehensive legal framework to protect data privacy.The Draft Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 is still to be tabled but could enable protection of privacy. The draft Bill follows up on the provisions recommended by Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee in 2018. The committee sought to codify the relationship between individuals and firms/state institutions as one between "data principals" (whose information is collected) and "data fiduciaries" (those processing the data) so that privacy is safeguarded by design. While the 2019 version of the Bill seeks to retain the intent and many of the recommendations of the Justice Srikrishna committee, it has also diluted a few provisions. For example, while the Bill tasks the fiduciary to seek the consent in a free, informed, specific, clear form (and which is capable of being withdrawn later) from the principal, it has removed the proviso from the 2018 version of the Bill that said selling or transferring sensitive personal data by the fiduciary to a third party is an offence. There are other substantive issues with the Bill pertaining to the situations when state institutions are granted exemption from seeking consent from principals to process or obtain their information. Yet, considering the manner in which public data are being stored and used by both the state and private entities, a comprehensive Data Protection Act is the need of the hour.Q. Where there is a clash between two Fundamental Rights, the right which would advance the public morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of court. M was suffering from AIDS and was undergoing treatment at a City Hospital.Chief Medical Officer of the Hospital demanded 50 Lakhs from M for keeping the secret. M denied. Chief Medical Officer issued a news bulletin and named X as an AIDS patient. This information was misused by business rivals of M for defaming him. M filed a suit against the Hospital and Chief Medical Officer.Choose the correct option:a)Action of the defendants is justified as it was required in public interest to reveal the medical condition of M.b)Action of defendants is justified as the right of public to know is the fundamental right of privacy of M.c)Action of defendants is not justified, as the information was not revealed in public interest and violates the fundamental right to privacy.d)Action of defendants is not justified, as it violates right to life and liberty of M.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The report by a German cybersecurity firm that medical details of millions of Indian patients were leaked and are freely available on the Internet is worrying. The firm listed 1.02 million studies of Indian patients and 121 million medical images, including CT Scans, MRIs and even photos of the patients, as being available. Such information has the potential to be mined for deeper data analysis and for creating profiles that could be used for social engineering, phishing and online identity theft, among other practices that thrive on the availability of such data on the Darknet - restricted computer networks which exchange information using means such as peerto-peer file sharing. Public data leaks have been quite common in India - from government websites enabling the download of Aadhaar numbers to electoral data rolls being downloaded in bulk, among others. Unlike the data protection regulations in place in the European Union and in the U.S., India still lacks a comprehensive legal framework to protect data privacy.The Draft Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 is still to be tabled but could enable protection of privacy. The draft Bill follows up on the provisions recommended by Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee in 2018. The committee sought to codify the relationship between individuals and firms/state institutions as one between "data principals" (whose information is collected) and "data fiduciaries" (those processing the data) so that privacy is safeguarded by design. While the 2019 version of the Bill seeks to retain the intent and many of the recommendations of the Justice Srikrishna committee, it has also diluted a few provisions. For example, while the Bill tasks the fiduciary to seek the consent in a free, informed, specific, clear form (and which is capable of being withdrawn later) from the principal, it has removed the proviso from the 2018 version of the Bill that said selling or transferring sensitive personal data by the fiduciary to a third party is an offence. There are other substantive issues with the Bill pertaining to the situations when state institutions are granted exemption from seeking consent from principals to process or obtain their information. Yet, considering the manner in which public data are being stored and used by both the state and private entities, a comprehensive Data Protection Act is the need of the hour.Q. Where there is a clash between two Fundamental Rights, the right which would advance the public morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of court. M was suffering from AIDS and was undergoing treatment at a City Hospital.Chief Medical Officer of the Hospital demanded 50 Lakhs from M for keeping the secret. M denied. Chief Medical Officer issued a news bulletin and named X as an AIDS patient. This information was misused by business rivals of M for defaming him. M filed a suit against the Hospital and Chief Medical Officer.Choose the correct option:a)Action of the defendants is justified as it was required in public interest to reveal the medical condition of M.b)Action of defendants is justified as the right of public to know is the fundamental right of privacy of M.c)Action of defendants is not justified, as the information was not revealed in public interest and violates the fundamental right to privacy.d)Action of defendants is not justified, as it violates right to life and liberty of M.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The report by a German cybersecurity firm that medical details of millions of Indian patients were leaked and are freely available on the Internet is worrying. The firm listed 1.02 million studies of Indian patients and 121 million medical images, including CT Scans, MRIs and even photos of the patients, as being available. Such information has the potential to be mined for deeper data analysis and for creating profiles that could be used for social engineering, phishing and online identity theft, among other practices that thrive on the availability of such data on the Darknet - restricted computer networks which exchange information using means such as peerto-peer file sharing. Public data leaks have been quite common in India - from government websites enabling the download of Aadhaar numbers to electoral data rolls being downloaded in bulk, among others. Unlike the data protection regulations in place in the European Union and in the U.S., India still lacks a comprehensive legal framework to protect data privacy.The Draft Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 is still to be tabled but could enable protection of privacy. The draft Bill follows up on the provisions recommended by Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee in 2018. The committee sought to codify the relationship between individuals and firms/state institutions as one between "data principals" (whose information is collected) and "data fiduciaries" (those processing the data) so that privacy is safeguarded by design. While the 2019 version of the Bill seeks to retain the intent and many of the recommendations of the Justice Srikrishna committee, it has also diluted a few provisions. For example, while the Bill tasks the fiduciary to seek the consent in a free, informed, specific, clear form (and which is capable of being withdrawn later) from the principal, it has removed the proviso from the 2018 version of the Bill that said selling or transferring sensitive personal data by the fiduciary to a third party is an offence. There are other substantive issues with the Bill pertaining to the situations when state institutions are granted exemption from seeking consent from principals to process or obtain their information. Yet, considering the manner in which public data are being stored and used by both the state and private entities, a comprehensive Data Protection Act is the need of the hour.Q. Where there is a clash between two Fundamental Rights, the right which would advance the public morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of court. M was suffering from AIDS and was undergoing treatment at a City Hospital.Chief Medical Officer of the Hospital demanded 50 Lakhs from M for keeping the secret. M denied. Chief Medical Officer issued a news bulletin and named X as an AIDS patient. This information was misused by business rivals of M for defaming him. M filed a suit against the Hospital and Chief Medical Officer.Choose the correct option:a)Action of the defendants is justified as it was required in public interest to reveal the medical condition of M.b)Action of defendants is justified as the right of public to know is the fundamental right of privacy of M.c)Action of defendants is not justified, as the information was not revealed in public interest and violates the fundamental right to privacy.d)Action of defendants is not justified, as it violates right to life and liberty of M.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The report by a German cybersecurity firm that medical details of millions of Indian patients were leaked and are freely available on the Internet is worrying. The firm listed 1.02 million studies of Indian patients and 121 million medical images, including CT Scans, MRIs and even photos of the patients, as being available. Such information has the potential to be mined for deeper data analysis and for creating profiles that could be used for social engineering, phishing and online identity theft, among other practices that thrive on the availability of such data on the Darknet - restricted computer networks which exchange information using means such as peerto-peer file sharing. Public data leaks have been quite common in India - from government websites enabling the download of Aadhaar numbers to electoral data rolls being downloaded in bulk, among others. Unlike the data protection regulations in place in the European Union and in the U.S., India still lacks a comprehensive legal framework to protect data privacy.The Draft Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 is still to be tabled but could enable protection of privacy. The draft Bill follows up on the provisions recommended by Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee in 2018. The committee sought to codify the relationship between individuals and firms/state institutions as one between "data principals" (whose information is collected) and "data fiduciaries" (those processing the data) so that privacy is safeguarded by design. While the 2019 version of the Bill seeks to retain the intent and many of the recommendations of the Justice Srikrishna committee, it has also diluted a few provisions. For example, while the Bill tasks the fiduciary to seek the consent in a free, informed, specific, clear form (and which is capable of being withdrawn later) from the principal, it has removed the proviso from the 2018 version of the Bill that said selling or transferring sensitive personal data by the fiduciary to a third party is an offence. There are other substantive issues with the Bill pertaining to the situations when state institutions are granted exemption from seeking consent from principals to process or obtain their information. Yet, considering the manner in which public data are being stored and used by both the state and private entities, a comprehensive Data Protection Act is the need of the hour.Q. Where there is a clash between two Fundamental Rights, the right which would advance the public morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of court. M was suffering from AIDS and was undergoing treatment at a City Hospital.Chief Medical Officer of the Hospital demanded 50 Lakhs from M for keeping the secret. M denied. Chief Medical Officer issued a news bulletin and named X as an AIDS patient. This information was misused by business rivals of M for defaming him. M filed a suit against the Hospital and Chief Medical Officer.Choose the correct option:a)Action of the defendants is justified as it was required in public interest to reveal the medical condition of M.b)Action of defendants is justified as the right of public to know is the fundamental right of privacy of M.c)Action of defendants is not justified, as the information was not revealed in public interest and violates the fundamental right to privacy.d)Action of defendants is not justified, as it violates right to life and liberty of M.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The report by a German cybersecurity firm that medical details of millions of Indian patients were leaked and are freely available on the Internet is worrying. The firm listed 1.02 million studies of Indian patients and 121 million medical images, including CT Scans, MRIs and even photos of the patients, as being available. Such information has the potential to be mined for deeper data analysis and for creating profiles that could be used for social engineering, phishing and online identity theft, among other practices that thrive on the availability of such data on the Darknet - restricted computer networks which exchange information using means such as peerto-peer file sharing. Public data leaks have been quite common in India - from government websites enabling the download of Aadhaar numbers to electoral data rolls being downloaded in bulk, among others. Unlike the data protection regulations in place in the European Union and in the U.S., India still lacks a comprehensive legal framework to protect data privacy.The Draft Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 is still to be tabled but could enable protection of privacy. The draft Bill follows up on the provisions recommended by Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee in 2018. The committee sought to codify the relationship between individuals and firms/state institutions as one between "data principals" (whose information is collected) and "data fiduciaries" (those processing the data) so that privacy is safeguarded by design. While the 2019 version of the Bill seeks to retain the intent and many of the recommendations of the Justice Srikrishna committee, it has also diluted a few provisions. For example, while the Bill tasks the fiduciary to seek the consent in a free, informed, specific, clear form (and which is capable of being withdrawn later) from the principal, it has removed the proviso from the 2018 version of the Bill that said selling or transferring sensitive personal data by the fiduciary to a third party is an offence. There are other substantive issues with the Bill pertaining to the situations when state institutions are granted exemption from seeking consent from principals to process or obtain their information. Yet, considering the manner in which public data are being stored and used by both the state and private entities, a comprehensive Data Protection Act is the need of the hour.Q. Where there is a clash between two Fundamental Rights, the right which would advance the public morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of court. M was suffering from AIDS and was undergoing treatment at a City Hospital.Chief Medical Officer of the Hospital demanded 50 Lakhs from M for keeping the secret. M denied. Chief Medical Officer issued a news bulletin and named X as an AIDS patient. This information was misused by business rivals of M for defaming him. M filed a suit against the Hospital and Chief Medical Officer.Choose the correct option:a)Action of the defendants is justified as it was required in public interest to reveal the medical condition of M.b)Action of defendants is justified as the right of public to know is the fundamental right of privacy of M.c)Action of defendants is not justified, as the information was not revealed in public interest and violates the fundamental right to privacy.d)Action of defendants is not justified, as it violates right to life and liberty of M.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The report by a German cybersecurity firm that medical details of millions of Indian patients were leaked and are freely available on the Internet is worrying. The firm listed 1.02 million studies of Indian patients and 121 million medical images, including CT Scans, MRIs and even photos of the patients, as being available. Such information has the potential to be mined for deeper data analysis and for creating profiles that could be used for social engineering, phishing and online identity theft, among other practices that thrive on the availability of such data on the Darknet - restricted computer networks which exchange information using means such as peerto-peer file sharing. Public data leaks have been quite common in India - from government websites enabling the download of Aadhaar numbers to electoral data rolls being downloaded in bulk, among others. Unlike the data protection regulations in place in the European Union and in the U.S., India still lacks a comprehensive legal framework to protect data privacy.The Draft Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 is still to be tabled but could enable protection of privacy. The draft Bill follows up on the provisions recommended by Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee in 2018. The committee sought to codify the relationship between individuals and firms/state institutions as one between "data principals" (whose information is collected) and "data fiduciaries" (those processing the data) so that privacy is safeguarded by design. While the 2019 version of the Bill seeks to retain the intent and many of the recommendations of the Justice Srikrishna committee, it has also diluted a few provisions. For example, while the Bill tasks the fiduciary to seek the consent in a free, informed, specific, clear form (and which is capable of being withdrawn later) from the principal, it has removed the proviso from the 2018 version of the Bill that said selling or transferring sensitive personal data by the fiduciary to a third party is an offence. There are other substantive issues with the Bill pertaining to the situations when state institutions are granted exemption from seeking consent from principals to process or obtain their information. Yet, considering the manner in which public data are being stored and used by both the state and private entities, a comprehensive Data Protection Act is the need of the hour.Q. Where there is a clash between two Fundamental Rights, the right which would advance the public morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of court. M was suffering from AIDS and was undergoing treatment at a City Hospital.Chief Medical Officer of the Hospital demanded 50 Lakhs from M for keeping the secret. M denied. Chief Medical Officer issued a news bulletin and named X as an AIDS patient. This information was misused by business rivals of M for defaming him. M filed a suit against the Hospital and Chief Medical Officer.Choose the correct option:a)Action of the defendants is justified as it was required in public interest to reveal the medical condition of M.b)Action of defendants is justified as the right of public to know is the fundamental right of privacy of M.c)Action of defendants is not justified, as the information was not revealed in public interest and violates the fundamental right to privacy.d)Action of defendants is not justified, as it violates right to life and liberty of M.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.