Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court (2017) has held that any infringement of the right to privacy should be proportionate to the need for such interference. The exemptions may lead to data collection, processing, and retention beyond what is necessary. This may not be proportionate, andamp; may violate the fundamental right to privacy. The Bill empowers the central government to exempt processing by government agencies from any or all provisions, in the interest of aims such as the security of the state and maintenance of public order. None of the rights of data principals and obligations of data fiduciaries (except data security) will apply in certain cases such as processing for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of offences. The Bill does not require government agencies to delete personal data, after the purpose for processing has been met. Using the above exemptions, on the ground of national security, a government agency may collect data about citizens to create a 360-degree profile for surveillance. It may utilise data retained by various government agencies for this purpose. This raises the question whether these exemptions will meet the proportionality test. For interception of communication on grounds such as national security, in PUCL vs Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court had mandated various safeguards including: (i) establishing necessity, (ii) purpose limitation, and (iii) storage limitation. These are similar to the obligations of data fiduciaries under the Bill, the application of which has been exempted. The Srikrishna Committee (2018) had recommended that in case of processing on grounds such as national security and prevention and prosecution of offences, obligations other than fair and reasonable processing and security safeguards should not apply. It observed that obligations such as storage limitation and purpose specification, if applicable, would be implemented through a separate law. India does not have any such legal framework.Q.According to the passage, what does the Supreme Court ruling from 2017 require regarding the right to privacy?a)It requires complete data deletion after processing.b)It demands data collection beyond necessity.c)It mandates proportionality in any infringement of the right to privacy.d)It empowers government agencies to exempt processing.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully...

Join the Discussion on the App

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.

The Supreme Court (2017) has held that any infringement of the right to privacy should be proportionate to the need for such interference. The exemptions may lead to data collection, processing, and retention beyond what is necessary. This may not be proportionate, & may violate the fundamental right to privacy. The Bill empowers the central government to exempt processing by government agencies from any or all provisions, in the interest of aims such as the security of the state and maintenance of public order. None of the rights of data principals and obligations of data fiduciaries (except data security) will apply in certain cases such as processing for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of offences. The Bill does not require government agencies to delete personal data, after the purpose for processing has been met. Using the above exemptions, on the ground of national security, a government agency may collect data about citizens to create a 360-degree profile for surveillance. It may utilise data retained by various government agencies for this purpose. This raises the question whether these exemptions will meet the proportionality test. For interception of communication on grounds such as national security, in PUCL vs Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court had mandated various safeguards including: (i) establishing necessity, (ii) purpose limitation, and (iii) storage limitation. These are similar to the obligations of data fiduciaries under the Bill, the application of which has been exempted. The Srikrishna Committee (2018) had recommended that in case of processing on grounds such as national security and prevention and prosecution of offences, obligations other than fair and reasonable processing and security safeguards should not apply. It observed that obligations such as storage limitation and purpose specification, if applicable, would be implemented through a separate law. India does not have any such legal framework.

Q. According to the passage, what does the Supreme Court ruling from 2017 require regarding the right to privacy?

a)
It requires complete data deletion after processing.
b)
It demands data collection beyond necessity.
c)
It mandates proportionality in any infringement of the right to privacy.
d)
It empowers government agencies to exempt processing.

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

Test: CLAT Mock Test - 8

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Most Upvoted Answer

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions...

The correct answer is C. The passage states that the Supreme Court in 2017 held that any infringement of the right to privacy should be proportionate to the need for such interference.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

Attention CLAT Students!

To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court (2017) has held that any infringement of the right to privacy should be proportionate to the need for such interference. The exemptions may lead to data collection, processing, and retention beyond what is necessary. This may not be proportionate, & may violate the fundamental right to privacy. The Bill empowers the central government to exempt processing by government agencies from any or all provisions, in the interest of aims such as the security of the state and maintenance of public order. None of the rights of data principals and obligations of data fiduciaries (except data security) will apply in certain cases such as processing for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of offences. The Bill does not require government agencies to delete personal data, after the purpose for processing has been met. Using the above exemptions, on the ground of national security, a government agency may collect data about citizens to create a 360-degree profile for surveillance. It may utilise data retained by various government agencies for this purpose. This raises the question whether these exemptions will meet the proportionality test. For interception of communication on grounds such as national security, in PUCL vs Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court had mandated various safeguards including: (i) establishing necessity, (ii) purpose limitation, and (iii) storage limitation. These are similar to the obligations of data fiduciaries under the Bill, the application of which has been exempted. The Srikrishna Committee (2018) had recommended that in case of processing on grounds such as national security and prevention and prosecution of offences, obligations other than fair and reasonable processing and security safeguards should not apply. It observed that obligations such as storage limitation and purpose specification, if applicable, would be implemented through a separate law. India does not have any such legal framework.Q.What did the Srikrishna Committee recommend regarding obligations for processing on grounds such as national security and prevention and prosecution of offences?

View answer

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court (2017) has held that any infringement of the right to privacy should be proportionate to the need for such interference. The exemptions may lead to data collection, processing, and retention beyond what is necessary. This may not be proportionate, & may violate the fundamental right to privacy. The Bill empowers the central government to exempt processing by government agencies from any or all provisions, in the interest of aims such as the security of the state and maintenance of public order. None of the rights of data principals and obligations of data fiduciaries (except data security) will apply in certain cases such as processing for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of offences. The Bill does not require government agencies to delete personal data, after the purpose for processing has been met. Using the above exemptions, on the ground of national security, a government agency may collect data about citizens to create a 360-degree profile for surveillance. It may utilise data retained by various government agencies for this purpose. This raises the question whether these exemptions will meet the proportionality test. For interception of communication on grounds such as national security, in PUCL vs Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court had mandated various safeguards including: (i) establishing necessity, (ii) purpose limitation, and (iii) storage limitation. These are similar to the obligations of data fiduciaries under the Bill, the application of which has been exempted. The Srikrishna Committee (2018) had recommended that in case of processing on grounds such as national security and prevention and prosecution of offences, obligations other than fair and reasonable processing and security safeguards should not apply. It observed that obligations such as storage limitation and purpose specification, if applicable, would be implemented through a separate law. India does not have any such legal framework.Q.The central government, in the interest of national security, allows a government agency to collect and retain personal data of citizens beyond what is necessary for the purpose of creating a 360-degree profile for surveillance. A group of citizens challenge this exemption before the Supreme Court on the grounds of violation of the right to privacy. Which of the following options is correct?

View answer

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court (2017) has held that any infringement of the right to privacy should be proportionate to the need for such interference. The exemptions may lead to data collection, processing, and retention beyond what is necessary. This may not be proportionate, & may violate the fundamental right to privacy. The Bill empowers the central government to exempt processing by government agencies from any or all provisions, in the interest of aims such as the security of the state and maintenance of public order. None of the rights of data principals and obligations of data fiduciaries (except data security) will apply in certain cases such as processing for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of offences. The Bill does not require government agencies to delete personal data, after the purpose for processing has been met. Using the above exemptions, on the ground of national security, a government agency may collect data about citizens to create a 360-degree profile for surveillance. It may utilise data retained by various government agencies for this purpose. This raises the question whether these exemptions will meet the proportionality test. For interception of communication on grounds such as national security, in PUCL vs Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court had mandated various safeguards including: (i) establishing necessity, (ii) purpose limitation, and (iii) storage limitation. These are similar to the obligations of data fiduciaries under the Bill, the application of which has been exempted. The Srikrishna Committee (2018) had recommended that in case of processing on grounds such as national security and prevention and prosecution of offences, obligations other than fair and reasonable processing and security safeguards should not apply. It observed that obligations such as storage limitation and purpose specification, if applicable, would be implemented through a separate law. India does not have any such legal framework.Q.Utilizing the provisions of the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, the central government has exercised its authority to enable a government agency to gather and handle personal data from citizens, with no requirement to erase the data once the processings purpose has been fulfilled. The agency asserts that this data is indispensable for national security reasons. Does the exemption afforded to government agencies under the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 adhere to the proportionality standard established by the right to privacy?

View answer

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court (2017) has held that any infringement of the right to privacy should be proportionate to the need for such interference. The exemptions may lead to data collection, processing, and retention beyond what is necessary. This may not be proportionate, & may violate the fundamental right to privacy. The Bill empowers the central government to exempt processing by government agencies from any or all provisions, in the interest of aims such as the security of the state and maintenance of public order. None of the rights of data principals and obligations of data fiduciaries (except data security) will apply in certain cases such as processing for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of offences. The Bill does not require government agencies to delete personal data, after the purpose for processing has been met. Using the above exemptions, on the ground of national security, a government agency may collect data about citizens to create a 360-degree profile for surveillance. It may utilise data retained by various government agencies for this purpose. This raises the question whether these exemptions will meet the proportionality test. For interception of communication on grounds such as national security, in PUCL vs Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court had mandated various safeguards including: (i) establishing necessity, (ii) purpose limitation, and (iii) storage limitation. These are similar to the obligations of data fiduciaries under the Bill, the application of which has been exempted. The Srikrishna Committee (2018) had recommended that in case of processing on grounds such as national security and prevention and prosecution of offences, obligations other than fair and reasonable processing and security safeguards should not apply. It observed that obligations such as storage limitation and purpose specification, if applicable, would be implemented through a separate law. India does not have any such legal framework.Q.The central government has granted government agencies exemptions from the Bills stipulations in the pursuit of national security. One of these agencies has compiled personal data from citizens to formulate an all-encompassing surveillance profile. A citizen has taken the matter to the Supreme Court, contesting the lawfulness of this data compilation. The government agency contends that the data collection is imperative for national security objectives. Is the government agencys data collection deemed legal?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.It has been repeatedly held that the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) is a sui generis legislation, enacted to tackle money laundering through white-collar crimes. According to Section 3 of the PMLA, the act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property constitutes the offense of money laundering. Under the Schedule to the PMLA, a number of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special statutes have been included, which serve as the basis for the offense of money laundering. In other words, the existence of predicate offense is sine qua non to charge someone with money laundering. It is crucial to note that the investigation and prosecution of the predicate offense are done typically by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the State Police.Section 50 of the PMLA provides powers of a civil court to the ED authorities for summoning persons suspected of money laundering and recording statements. However, the Supreme Court held that ED authorities are not police officers. It observed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) that “the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not ‘investigation’ in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution.” There are other dissimilarities between ED authorities and the police. While the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offense before conducting an investigation, ED authorities begin with search procedures and undertake their investigation for the purpose of gathering materials and tracing the ‘proceeds of crime’ by issuing summons. Any statement made by an accused to the police is inadmissible as evidence in court, whereas a statement made to an ED authority is admissible. A copy of the FIR is accessible to the accused, whereas the Enforcement Case Information Report is seldom available.While the police investigating the predicate offense are empowered to arrest and seek custody of the accused, the ED is meant to focus on recovering the proceeds of crime in order to redistribute the same to victims. It is not clear whether the ED has managed to do this. Per contra, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, the analogous legislation in the U.K., almost entirely concentrates on the confiscation of assets through dedicated civil proceedings. Unfortunately, of late, much of the ED’s powers have been discharged in effecting pretrial arrests, which used to be the prerogative of the police investigating the predicate offence. In the past, the CBI was used to impart fear among political opponents. In the process, the agency received the condemnation of various courts and earned the nickname “caged parrot”. Whether the ED will go down the same path or reorient its approach will entirely depend on the intervention of the country’s constitutional courts.Q.Which of the following is not the appropriate cause-and-effect relationship in the passages context?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court (2017) has held that any infringement of the right to privacy should be proportionate to the need for such interference. The exemptions may lead to data collection, processing, and retention beyond what is necessary. This may not be proportionate, & may violate the fundamental right to privacy. The Bill empowers the central government to exempt processing by government agencies from any or all provisions, in the interest of aims such as the security of the state and maintenance of public order. None of the rights of data principals and obligations of data fiduciaries (except data security) will apply in certain cases such as processing for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of offences. The Bill does not require government agencies to delete personal data, after the purpose for processing has been met. Using the above exemptions, on the ground of national security, a government agency may collect data about citizens to create a 360-degree profile for surveillance. It may utilise data retained by various government agencies for this purpose. This raises the question whether these exemptions will meet the proportionality test. For interception of communication on grounds such as national security, in PUCL vs Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court had mandated various safeguards including: (i) establishing necessity, (ii) purpose limitation, and (iii) storage limitation. These are similar to the obligations of data fiduciaries under the Bill, the application of which has been exempted. The Srikrishna Committee (2018) had recommended that in case of processing on grounds such as national security and prevention and prosecution of offences, obligations other than fair and reasonable processing and security safeguards should not apply. It observed that obligations such as storage limitation and purpose specification, if applicable, would be implemented through a separate law. India does not have any such legal framework.Q.According to the passage, what does the Supreme Court ruling from 2017 require regarding the right to privacy?a)It requires complete data deletion after processing.b)It demands data collection beyond necessity.c)It mandates proportionality in any infringement of the right to privacy.d)It empowers government agencies to exempt processing.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court (2017) has held that any infringement of the right to privacy should be proportionate to the need for such interference. The exemptions may lead to data collection, processing, and retention beyond what is necessary. This may not be proportionate, & may violate the fundamental right to privacy. The Bill empowers the central government to exempt processing by government agencies from any or all provisions, in the interest of aims such as the security of the state and maintenance of public order. None of the rights of data principals and obligations of data fiduciaries (except data security) will apply in certain cases such as processing for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of offences. The Bill does not require government agencies to delete personal data, after the purpose for processing has been met. Using the above exemptions, on the ground of national security, a government agency may collect data about citizens to create a 360-degree profile for surveillance. It may utilise data retained by various government agencies for this purpose. This raises the question whether these exemptions will meet the proportionality test. For interception of communication on grounds such as national security, in PUCL vs Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court had mandated various safeguards including: (i) establishing necessity, (ii) purpose limitation, and (iii) storage limitation. These are similar to the obligations of data fiduciaries under the Bill, the application of which has been exempted. The Srikrishna Committee (2018) had recommended that in case of processing on grounds such as national security and prevention and prosecution of offences, obligations other than fair and reasonable processing and security safeguards should not apply. It observed that obligations such as storage limitation and purpose specification, if applicable, would be implemented through a separate law. India does not have any such legal framework.Q.According to the passage, what does the Supreme Court ruling from 2017 require regarding the right to privacy?a)It requires complete data deletion after processing.b)It demands data collection beyond necessity.c)It mandates proportionality in any infringement of the right to privacy.d)It empowers government agencies to exempt processing.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court (2017) has held that any infringement of the right to privacy should be proportionate to the need for such interference. The exemptions may lead to data collection, processing, and retention beyond what is necessary. This may not be proportionate, & may violate the fundamental right to privacy. The Bill empowers the central government to exempt processing by government agencies from any or all provisions, in the interest of aims such as the security of the state and maintenance of public order. None of the rights of data principals and obligations of data fiduciaries (except data security) will apply in certain cases such as processing for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of offences. The Bill does not require government agencies to delete personal data, after the purpose for processing has been met. Using the above exemptions, on the ground of national security, a government agency may collect data about citizens to create a 360-degree profile for surveillance. It may utilise data retained by various government agencies for this purpose. This raises the question whether these exemptions will meet the proportionality test. For interception of communication on grounds such as national security, in PUCL vs Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court had mandated various safeguards including: (i) establishing necessity, (ii) purpose limitation, and (iii) storage limitation. These are similar to the obligations of data fiduciaries under the Bill, the application of which has been exempted. The Srikrishna Committee (2018) had recommended that in case of processing on grounds such as national security and prevention and prosecution of offences, obligations other than fair and reasonable processing and security safeguards should not apply. It observed that obligations such as storage limitation and purpose specification, if applicable, would be implemented through a separate law. India does not have any such legal framework.Q.According to the passage, what does the Supreme Court ruling from 2017 require regarding the right to privacy?a)It requires complete data deletion after processing.b)It demands data collection beyond necessity.c)It mandates proportionality in any infringement of the right to privacy.d)It empowers government agencies to exempt processing.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court (2017) has held that any infringement of the right to privacy should be proportionate to the need for such interference. The exemptions may lead to data collection, processing, and retention beyond what is necessary. This may not be proportionate, & may violate the fundamental right to privacy. The Bill empowers the central government to exempt processing by government agencies from any or all provisions, in the interest of aims such as the security of the state and maintenance of public order. None of the rights of data principals and obligations of data fiduciaries (except data security) will apply in certain cases such as processing for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of offences. The Bill does not require government agencies to delete personal data, after the purpose for processing has been met. Using the above exemptions, on the ground of national security, a government agency may collect data about citizens to create a 360-degree profile for surveillance. It may utilise data retained by various government agencies for this purpose. This raises the question whether these exemptions will meet the proportionality test. For interception of communication on grounds such as national security, in PUCL vs Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court had mandated various safeguards including: (i) establishing necessity, (ii) purpose limitation, and (iii) storage limitation. These are similar to the obligations of data fiduciaries under the Bill, the application of which has been exempted. The Srikrishna Committee (2018) had recommended that in case of processing on grounds such as national security and prevention and prosecution of offences, obligations other than fair and reasonable processing and security safeguards should not apply. It observed that obligations such as storage limitation and purpose specification, if applicable, would be implemented through a separate law. India does not have any such legal framework.Q.According to the passage, what does the Supreme Court ruling from 2017 require regarding the right to privacy?a)It requires complete data deletion after processing.b)It demands data collection beyond necessity.c)It mandates proportionality in any infringement of the right to privacy.d)It empowers government agencies to exempt processing.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court (2017) has held that any infringement of the right to privacy should be proportionate to the need for such interference. The exemptions may lead to data collection, processing, and retention beyond what is necessary. This may not be proportionate, & may violate the fundamental right to privacy. The Bill empowers the central government to exempt processing by government agencies from any or all provisions, in the interest of aims such as the security of the state and maintenance of public order. None of the rights of data principals and obligations of data fiduciaries (except data security) will apply in certain cases such as processing for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of offences. The Bill does not require government agencies to delete personal data, after the purpose for processing has been met. Using the above exemptions, on the ground of national security, a government agency may collect data about citizens to create a 360-degree profile for surveillance. It may utilise data retained by various government agencies for this purpose. This raises the question whether these exemptions will meet the proportionality test. For interception of communication on grounds such as national security, in PUCL vs Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court had mandated various safeguards including: (i) establishing necessity, (ii) purpose limitation, and (iii) storage limitation. These are similar to the obligations of data fiduciaries under the Bill, the application of which has been exempted. The Srikrishna Committee (2018) had recommended that in case of processing on grounds such as national security and prevention and prosecution of offences, obligations other than fair and reasonable processing and security safeguards should not apply. It observed that obligations such as storage limitation and purpose specification, if applicable, would be implemented through a separate law. India does not have any such legal framework.Q.According to the passage, what does the Supreme Court ruling from 2017 require regarding the right to privacy?a)It requires complete data deletion after processing.b)It demands data collection beyond necessity.c)It mandates proportionality in any infringement of the right to privacy.d)It empowers government agencies to exempt processing.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 Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court (2017) has held that any infringement of the right to privacy should be proportionate to the need for such interference. The exemptions may lead to data collection, processing, and retention beyond what is necessary. This may not be proportionate, & may violate the fundamental right to privacy. The Bill empowers the central government to exempt processing by government agencies from any or all provisions, in the interest of aims such as the security of the state and maintenance of public order. None of the rights of data principals and obligations of data fiduciaries (except data security) will apply in certain cases such as processing for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of offences. The Bill does not require government agencies to delete personal data, after the purpose for processing has been met. Using the above exemptions, on the ground of national security, a government agency may collect data about citizens to create a 360-degree profile for surveillance. It may utilise data retained by various government agencies for this purpose. This raises the question whether these exemptions will meet the proportionality test. For interception of communication on grounds such as national security, in PUCL vs Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court had mandated various safeguards including: (i) establishing necessity, (ii) purpose limitation, and (iii) storage limitation. These are similar to the obligations of data fiduciaries under the Bill, the application of which has been exempted. The Srikrishna Committee (2018) had recommended that in case of processing on grounds such as national security and prevention and prosecution of offences, obligations other than fair and reasonable processing and security safeguards should not apply. It observed that obligations such as storage limitation and purpose specification, if applicable, would be implemented through a separate law. India does not have any such legal framework.Q.According to the passage, what does the Supreme Court ruling from 2017 require regarding the right to privacy?a)It requires complete data deletion after processing.b)It demands data collection beyond necessity.c)It mandates proportionality in any infringement of the right to privacy.d)It empowers government agencies to exempt processing.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court (2017) has held that any infringement of the right to privacy should be proportionate to the need for such interference. The exemptions may lead to data collection, processing, and retention beyond what is necessary. This may not be proportionate, & may violate the fundamental right to privacy. The Bill empowers the central government to exempt processing by government agencies from any or all provisions, in the interest of aims such as the security of the state and maintenance of public order. None of the rights of data principals and obligations of data fiduciaries (except data security) will apply in certain cases such as processing for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of offences. The Bill does not require government agencies to delete personal data, after the purpose for processing has been met. Using the above exemptions, on the ground of national security, a government agency may collect data about citizens to create a 360-degree profile for surveillance. It may utilise data retained by various government agencies for this purpose. This raises the question whether these exemptions will meet the proportionality test. For interception of communication on grounds such as national security, in PUCL vs Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court had mandated various safeguards including: (i) establishing necessity, (ii) purpose limitation, and (iii) storage limitation. These are similar to the obligations of data fiduciaries under the Bill, the application of which has been exempted. The Srikrishna Committee (2018) had recommended that in case of processing on grounds such as national security and prevention and prosecution of offences, obligations other than fair and reasonable processing and security safeguards should not apply. It observed that obligations such as storage limitation and purpose specification, if applicable, would be implemented through a separate law. India does not have any such legal framework.Q.According to the passage, what does the Supreme Court ruling from 2017 require regarding the right to privacy?a)It requires complete data deletion after processing.b)It demands data collection beyond necessity.c)It mandates proportionality in any infringement of the right to privacy.d)It empowers government agencies to exempt processing.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court (2017) has held that any infringement of the right to privacy should be proportionate to the need for such interference. The exemptions may lead to data collection, processing, and retention beyond what is necessary. This may not be proportionate, & may violate the fundamental right to privacy. The Bill empowers the central government to exempt processing by government agencies from any or all provisions, in the interest of aims such as the security of the state and maintenance of public order. None of the rights of data principals and obligations of data fiduciaries (except data security) will apply in certain cases such as processing for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of offences. The Bill does not require government agencies to delete personal data, after the purpose for processing has been met. Using the above exemptions, on the ground of national security, a government agency may collect data about citizens to create a 360-degree profile for surveillance. It may utilise data retained by various government agencies for this purpose. This raises the question whether these exemptions will meet the proportionality test. For interception of communication on grounds such as national security, in PUCL vs Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court had mandated various safeguards including: (i) establishing necessity, (ii) purpose limitation, and (iii) storage limitation. These are similar to the obligations of data fiduciaries under the Bill, the application of which has been exempted. The Srikrishna Committee (2018) had recommended that in case of processing on grounds such as national security and prevention and prosecution of offences, obligations other than fair and reasonable processing and security safeguards should not apply. It observed that obligations such as storage limitation and purpose specification, if applicable, would be implemented through a separate law. India does not have any such legal framework.Q.According to the passage, what does the Supreme Court ruling from 2017 require regarding the right to privacy?a)It requires complete data deletion after processing.b)It demands data collection beyond necessity.c)It mandates proportionality in any infringement of the right to privacy.d)It empowers government agencies to exempt processing.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court (2017) has held that any infringement of the right to privacy should be proportionate to the need for such interference. The exemptions may lead to data collection, processing, and retention beyond what is necessary. This may not be proportionate, & may violate the fundamental right to privacy. The Bill empowers the central government to exempt processing by government agencies from any or all provisions, in the interest of aims such as the security of the state and maintenance of public order. None of the rights of data principals and obligations of data fiduciaries (except data security) will apply in certain cases such as processing for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of offences. The Bill does not require government agencies to delete personal data, after the purpose for processing has been met. Using the above exemptions, on the ground of national security, a government agency may collect data about citizens to create a 360-degree profile for surveillance. It may utilise data retained by various government agencies for this purpose. This raises the question whether these exemptions will meet the proportionality test. For interception of communication on grounds such as national security, in PUCL vs Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court had mandated various safeguards including: (i) establishing necessity, (ii) purpose limitation, and (iii) storage limitation. These are similar to the obligations of data fiduciaries under the Bill, the application of which has been exempted. The Srikrishna Committee (2018) had recommended that in case of processing on grounds such as national security and prevention and prosecution of offences, obligations other than fair and reasonable processing and security safeguards should not apply. It observed that obligations such as storage limitation and purpose specification, if applicable, would be implemented through a separate law. India does not have any such legal framework.Q.According to the passage, what does the Supreme Court ruling from 2017 require regarding the right to privacy?a)It requires complete data deletion after processing.b)It demands data collection beyond necessity.c)It mandates proportionality in any infringement of the right to privacy.d)It empowers government agencies to exempt processing.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Supreme Court (2017) has held that any infringement of the right to privacy should be proportionate to the need for such interference. The exemptions may lead to data collection, processing, and retention beyond what is necessary. This may not be proportionate, & may violate the fundamental right to privacy. The Bill empowers the central government to exempt processing by government agencies from any or all provisions, in the interest of aims such as the security of the state and maintenance of public order. None of the rights of data principals and obligations of data fiduciaries (except data security) will apply in certain cases such as processing for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of offences. The Bill does not require government agencies to delete personal data, after the purpose for processing has been met. Using the above exemptions, on the ground of national security, a government agency may collect data about citizens to create a 360-degree profile for surveillance. It may utilise data retained by various government agencies for this purpose. This raises the question whether these exemptions will meet the proportionality test. For interception of communication on grounds such as national security, in PUCL vs Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court had mandated various safeguards including: (i) establishing necessity, (ii) purpose limitation, and (iii) storage limitation. These are similar to the obligations of data fiduciaries under the Bill, the application of which has been exempted. The Srikrishna Committee (2018) had recommended that in case of processing on grounds such as national security and prevention and prosecution of offences, obligations other than fair and reasonable processing and security safeguards should not apply. It observed that obligations such as storage limitation and purpose specification, if applicable, would be implemented through a separate law. India does not have any such legal framework.Q.According to the passage, what does the Supreme Court ruling from 2017 require regarding the right to privacy?a)It requires complete data deletion after processing.b)It demands data collection beyond necessity.c)It mandates proportionality in any infringement of the right to privacy.d)It empowers government agencies to exempt processing.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam