Question Description
The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.The first issue is how the courts have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs.Third, Aadhaar linking is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements.Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed solution misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.Q. A court is deliberating a PIL as to whether platforms like WhatsApp that provide encrypted services should allow forms of traceability to enable finding the originator of content. Based on the authors reasoning above:a)It should be out of the courts purview since the matter should be dealt between the social media platform and the content creator.b)It should be out of the courts purview since the deliberation is on a technical question and not on a legal question.c)It should be out of the courts purview since the matter should be a decided by investigating agencies.d)It should be out of the courts purview since it can cause problems to the content creator who is mostly private citizens.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for Class 12 2024 is part of Class 12 preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Class 12 exam syllabus. Information about The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.The first issue is how the courts have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs.Third, Aadhaar linking is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements.Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed solution misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.Q. A court is deliberating a PIL as to whether platforms like WhatsApp that provide encrypted services should allow forms of traceability to enable finding the originator of content. Based on the authors reasoning above:a)It should be out of the courts purview since the matter should be dealt between the social media platform and the content creator.b)It should be out of the courts purview since the deliberation is on a technical question and not on a legal question.c)It should be out of the courts purview since the matter should be a decided by investigating agencies.d)It should be out of the courts purview since it can cause problems to the content creator who is mostly private citizens.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Class 12 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.The first issue is how the courts have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs.Third, Aadhaar linking is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements.Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed solution misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.Q. A court is deliberating a PIL as to whether platforms like WhatsApp that provide encrypted services should allow forms of traceability to enable finding the originator of content. Based on the authors reasoning above:a)It should be out of the courts purview since the matter should be dealt between the social media platform and the content creator.b)It should be out of the courts purview since the deliberation is on a technical question and not on a legal question.c)It should be out of the courts purview since the matter should be a decided by investigating agencies.d)It should be out of the courts purview since it can cause problems to the content creator who is mostly private citizens.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.The first issue is how the courts have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs.Third, Aadhaar linking is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements.Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed solution misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.Q. A court is deliberating a PIL as to whether platforms like WhatsApp that provide encrypted services should allow forms of traceability to enable finding the originator of content. Based on the authors reasoning above:a)It should be out of the courts purview since the matter should be dealt between the social media platform and the content creator.b)It should be out of the courts purview since the deliberation is on a technical question and not on a legal question.c)It should be out of the courts purview since the matter should be a decided by investigating agencies.d)It should be out of the courts purview since it can cause problems to the content creator who is mostly private citizens.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for Class 12. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Class 12 Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.The first issue is how the courts have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs.Third, Aadhaar linking is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements.Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed solution misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.Q. A court is deliberating a PIL as to whether platforms like WhatsApp that provide encrypted services should allow forms of traceability to enable finding the originator of content. Based on the authors reasoning above:a)It should be out of the courts purview since the matter should be dealt between the social media platform and the content creator.b)It should be out of the courts purview since the deliberation is on a technical question and not on a legal question.c)It should be out of the courts purview since the matter should be a decided by investigating agencies.d)It should be out of the courts purview since it can cause problems to the content creator who is mostly private citizens.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.The first issue is how the courts have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs.Third, Aadhaar linking is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements.Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed solution misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.Q. A court is deliberating a PIL as to whether platforms like WhatsApp that provide encrypted services should allow forms of traceability to enable finding the originator of content. Based on the authors reasoning above:a)It should be out of the courts purview since the matter should be dealt between the social media platform and the content creator.b)It should be out of the courts purview since the deliberation is on a technical question and not on a legal question.c)It should be out of the courts purview since the matter should be a decided by investigating agencies.d)It should be out of the courts purview since it can cause problems to the content creator who is mostly private citizens.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.The first issue is how the courts have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs.Third, Aadhaar linking is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements.Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed solution misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.Q. A court is deliberating a PIL as to whether platforms like WhatsApp that provide encrypted services should allow forms of traceability to enable finding the originator of content. Based on the authors reasoning above:a)It should be out of the courts purview since the matter should be dealt between the social media platform and the content creator.b)It should be out of the courts purview since the deliberation is on a technical question and not on a legal question.c)It should be out of the courts purview since the matter should be a decided by investigating agencies.d)It should be out of the courts purview since it can cause problems to the content creator who is mostly private citizens.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.The first issue is how the courts have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs.Third, Aadhaar linking is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements.Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed solution misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.Q. A court is deliberating a PIL as to whether platforms like WhatsApp that provide encrypted services should allow forms of traceability to enable finding the originator of content. Based on the authors reasoning above:a)It should be out of the courts purview since the matter should be dealt between the social media platform and the content creator.b)It should be out of the courts purview since the deliberation is on a technical question and not on a legal question.c)It should be out of the courts purview since the matter should be a decided by investigating agencies.d)It should be out of the courts purview since it can cause problems to the content creator who is mostly private citizens.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.The first issue is how the courts have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs.Third, Aadhaar linking is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements.Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed solution misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.Q. A court is deliberating a PIL as to whether platforms like WhatsApp that provide encrypted services should allow forms of traceability to enable finding the originator of content. Based on the authors reasoning above:a)It should be out of the courts purview since the matter should be dealt between the social media platform and the content creator.b)It should be out of the courts purview since the deliberation is on a technical question and not on a legal question.c)It should be out of the courts purview since the matter should be a decided by investigating agencies.d)It should be out of the courts purview since it can cause problems to the content creator who is mostly private citizens.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Class 12 tests.