Question

Assad buys an electoral bond worth ₹ 1,00,000/- on November 9, 2022 and plans to give the bond to the Popular People’s Party (the “PPP”), which he has been supporting for many years. On November 10, he must travel out of station on some urgent business, and he only hands the bond over to a representative of the PPP on November 14, 2022. The PPP’s representative deposits the bond in the Party’s account on November 16, 2022, but the bank refuses to credit the bond to the party’s account, on the grounds that it was no longer valid. Is the bank correct?

• A. No, since Assad was a long-time supporter of the PPP.
• B. Yes, since the bonds were only issued from November 9 to November 15, 2022 and were invalid after that.
• C. Yes, since the party representative had not deposited the bond with an authorised branch of the bank.
• D. No, since the bond was valid on November 16, 2022.
• A. No, since Assad was a long-time supporter of the PPP.
• B. Yes, since the bonds were only issued from November 9 to November 15, 2022 and were invalid after that.
• C. Yes, since the party representative had not deposited the bond with an authorised branch of the bank.
• D. No, since the bond was valid on November 16, 2022.
• A. No, since Palak cannot ask for the bond back once she has given it to a political party.
• B. No, since the party had already deposited the bond, and the money had been credited to its account.
• C. Yes, since Palak bought the bond with her own money, and has the right to ask for it back.
• D. Yes, since the PPP changed its candidates, and Palak may no longer support the party.
• A. Yes, since it is likely to succeed in the upcoming elections.
• B. Yes, since it fulfils the criteria announced in the November 7, 2022 notification.
• C. No, since it does not fulfil the eligibility criteria announced in the November 15, 2022 notification.
• D. No, since it does not fulfil the eligibility criteria announced in the November 7, 2022 notification.
• A. The bond was no longer valid.
• B. Abraham could not give the bond to the PPP since the PPP was not active in his state.
• C. The PPP was not eligible to receive electoral bonds.
• D. The PPP could only deposit the bond in a bank branch located in Abraham’s state.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1 (Recall the sale period).
The sale of electoral bonds for the 23rd tranche was scheduled from November 9 to November 15, 2022. Bonds are valid for only 15 calendar days from the date of issue.
Step 2 (Consider the deposit window).
The bonds need to be deposited within the validity period, which in this case ended on November 15, 2022. Since the deposit was made on November 16, the bond had expired.
Step 3 (Conclusion).
Since the bond was deposited after the expiry of the validity period, the bank’s refusal to credit the bond to the party’s account is correct.
\[ \boxed{\text{Yes, since the bonds were only issued from November 9 to November 15, 2022 and were invalid after that. (Option B)}} \]

Answer 2

Assad buys the bond on November 9 but only hands it to the PPP's representative on November 14, and the deposit happens on November 16. The question is whether the bank was right to refuse credit. Each option is checked against the stated validity rule.

1. Option A (No, since Assad was a long-time supporter of the PPP): How long or how loyal a supporter Assad has been has no bearing on whether a specific bond, with its own fixed validity window, can still be credited. This is an emotional or reputational argument, not a legal one, and the scheme's rules do not carve out an exception for long-standing donors.
2. Option B (Yes, since the bonds were only issued from November 9 to November 15, 2022 and were invalid after that): The bonds are valid for a fixed 15-day window from issue, and here the deposit on November 16 falls after that window closes on November 15 counting from the November 9 issue date within the tranche's own sale period. Once the validity period lapses, the scheme itself states that no payment shall be made to the payee party, which directly supports the bank's refusal.
3. Option C (Yes, since the party representative had not deposited the bond with an authorised branch of the bank): Nothing in the facts suggests the deposit was made at an unauthorised branch; the representative used the same State Bank of India network that the scheme designates. This option introduces a defect that is not actually present on the facts.
4. Option D (No, since the bond was valid on November 16, 2022): This directly contradicts the fixed validity window described in the scheme; the bond's validity had already lapsed by the 16th, so asserting it was still valid on that date does not match the rule.

Eliminating the options that rely on facts not present (unauthorised branch) or that misstate the validity window shows that the bond had genuinely expired by the time of deposit, and the scheme's own rule against crediting expired bonds applies squarely here.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option B, since the bonds were only issued from November 9 to November 15, 2022 and were invalid after that.

Answer 3

Step 1 (Recall the sale period).
The sale of electoral bonds for the 23rd tranche was scheduled from November 9 to November 15, 2022. Bonds are valid for only 15 calendar days from the date of issue.
Step 2 (Consider the deposit window).
The bonds need to be deposited within the validity period, which in this case ended on November 15, 2022. Since the deposit was made on November 16, the bond had expired.
Step 3 (Conclusion).
Since the bond was deposited after the expiry of the validity period, the bank’s refusal to credit the bond to the party’s account is correct.
\[ \boxed{\text{Yes, since the bonds were only issued from November 9 to November 15, 2022 and were invalid after that. (Option B)}} \]

Answer 4

This is the same fact pattern as before: Assad buys the bond on November 9, only passes it to the PPP on November 14, and the party deposits it on November 16, after which the bank refuses to credit it. Each option is tested afresh against the timeline.

1. Option A (No, since Assad was a long-time supporter of the PPP): A donor's history of support does not extend a bond's fixed validity period; the scheme's timing rule applies the same way no matter how devoted the supporter is, so this reasoning cannot justify treating the deposit as valid.
2. Option B (Yes, since the bonds were only issued from November 9 to November 15, 2022 and were invalid after that): The bonds for this tranche carried a defined sale and validity window ending on November 15, and the scheme is explicit that no payment is made on a bond deposited after its validity period expires. A deposit made on November 16 clearly falls outside that window.
3. Option C (Yes, since the party representative had not deposited the bond with an authorised branch of the bank): There is no indication in the facts that an unauthorised branch was used; the deposit went through the designated State Bank of India branch network, so this ground does not actually apply to what happened.
4. Option D (No, since the bond was valid on November 16, 2022): This assumes the bond's validity extended to the 16th, but the scheme's fixed window closed on the 15th, so this option simply misstates the timeline.

Once the branch-related and loyalty-related distractors are set aside, the deciding fact is squarely the expiry of the bond's validity window before the deposit was made.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option B, since the bonds were only issued from November 9 to November 15, 2022 and were invalid after that.

Answer 5

Step 1 (Understanding the nature of electoral bonds).
Electoral bonds, once handed over to a political party and deposited in its account, cannot be reversed or refunded.
Step 2 (Review the rules of the Electoral Bond Scheme).
The bond becomes the property of the political party once it is deposited in the party's account. The money is credited immediately, and the transaction is final.
Step 3 (Conclusion).
Since Palak handed the bond over to the PPP and the bond was already deposited in the party’s account, she cannot ask for the bond back.
\[ \boxed{\text{No, since the party had already deposited the bond, and the money had been credited to its account. (Option B)}} \]

Answer 6

Palak wants her bond back after learning the PPP changed its candidates, but by then the bond has already been deposited and the money credited to the party's account. The options are examined in light of that fact.

1. Option A (No, since Palak cannot ask for the bond back once she has given it to a political party): This states a broad rule about handing the bond over, but the more precise and decisive fact here is what happened afterward, namely deposit and credit, so this option captures the right result but for an imprecise reason; the mere act of handing it over is not, on its own, always irreversible in every conceivable circumstance.
2. Option B (No, since the party had already deposited the bond, and the money had been credited to its account): This identifies the precise, decisive event: once a bond is deposited and its value credited to the party's account, that transaction is complete and final, leaving no bond in existence for Palak to reclaim. Her change of heart came after this point had already passed.
3. Option C (Yes, since Palak bought the bond with her own money, and has the right to ask for it back): Ownership of the funds used to purchase the bond does not translate into an ongoing right of recall once the bond has been transferred and encashed; the scheme is designed around anonymity and finality of donation, not a right of reversal by the original purchaser.
4. Option D (Yes, since the PPP changed its candidates, and Palak may no longer support the party): A change in personal preference or disappointment with the party's decisions is understandable, but it is not a legal basis recognised by the scheme for undoing a completed donation.

Comparing Options A and B closely shows that B pinpoints the actual reason the reversal is impossible, namely that the transaction had already closed by deposit and credit, which makes it the more accurate and complete answer than the general statement in A.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option B, since the party had already deposited the bond, and the money had been credited to its account.

Answer 7

Step 1 (Review the eligibility criteria).
The new notification specifies that only political parties that have received at least 1% of the votes in the last Lok Sabha elections or the last Legislative Assembly elections are eligible to receive electoral bonds.
Step 2 (Assess the MPPP’s eligibility).
The MPPP is a new party, and as of November 2022, it has not contested any elections yet. Therefore, it does not meet the eligibility criteria based on past electoral results.
Step 3 (Conclusion).
Since the MPPP has not yet participated in any elections, it cannot receive electoral bonds under the new rules.
\[ \boxed{\text{No, since it does not fulfil the eligibility criteria announced in the November 15, 2022 notification. (Option C)}} \]

Answer 8

A new notification issued on November 15, 2022 introduces a 1% vote-share eligibility rule going forward, and Palak wants to give bonds from the 24th tranche to the newly formed MPPP, which has not yet contested any election. The options are checked against this new rule and its timing.

1. Option A (Yes, since it is likely to succeed in the upcoming elections): Predicted future success is not the criterion the notification sets; the rule looks backward at past vote share actually received, not forward at expected performance, so likely future success cannot satisfy it.
2. Option B (Yes, since it fulfils the criteria announced in the November 7, 2022 notification): The November 7 notification dealt with the additional sale period for bonds in Assembly election years, not with eligibility criteria for receiving bonds, so this option refers to the wrong notification entirely for this question.
3. Option C (No, since it does not fulfil the eligibility criteria announced in the November 15, 2022 notification): The November 15 notification is the one that actually introduces the 1% past-vote-share eligibility requirement, and since MPPP has never contested an election before, it has no past vote share to point to, so it fails this specific, correctly-identified rule.
4. Option D (No, since it does not fulfil the eligibility criteria announced in the November 7, 2022 notification): This reaches the same practical conclusion as C but attributes it to the wrong notification; the eligibility criteria were introduced on November 15, not November 7, so this option misidentifies its own legal basis.

Both C and D correctly conclude MPPP is ineligible, but only C traces that conclusion to the notification that actually created the eligibility rule, making it the more precise and correct answer.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option C, since it does not fulfil the eligibility criteria announced in the November 15, 2022 notification.

Answer 9

Step 1 (Recall the rules for electoral bonds).
Electoral bonds can only be deposited in the accounts of political parties that are eligible and actively registered in the state where the deposit is being made.
Step 2 (Consider the party’s eligibility).
The PPP is only active in Assad’s state, and since Abraham lives in a different state, the bond cannot be credited to the PPP’s account. The PPP must have an active presence in the state where the bond is deposited.
Step 3 (Eliminate other options).
- Option (A): The bond is valid for 15 days from the date of issue and had not expired by December 5, 2022.
- Option (C): The PPP was eligible to receive electoral bonds but must be active in the state where the deposit is made.
- Option (D): The bond can be deposited in any authorised branch, not necessarily in Abraham’s state.
Step 4 (Conclusion).
The most valid reason for the bank’s refusal is that the PPP was not active in Abraham’s state, and thus the bond could not be deposited.
\[ \boxed{\text{Abraham could not give the bond to the PPP since the PPP was not active in his state. (Option B)}} \]

Answer 10

Abraham, based in a different State from where the PPP is active, gives his bond to the PPP, and the bank refuses to credit it on December 5, 2022. The question asks for the MOST valid reason among the four, which requires ruling out the weaker ones first.

1. Option A (The bond was no longer valid): Bonds run for 15 calendar days from issue, and the deposit on December 5 falls within that window given the 23rd tranche's issue dates, so validity was not actually the problem; this option does not match the timeline.
2. Option B (Abraham could not give the bond to the PPP since the PPP was not active in his state): The scheme does not require the donor and the recipient party to be active in the same State; a purchaser in one State is free to donate to a party that operates primarily elsewhere. This restriction does not exist in the scheme, so it cannot be the valid reason.
3. Option C (The PPP was not eligible to receive electoral bonds): Nothing in the facts suggests the PPP failed any eligibility threshold; it has been treated throughout as an established, eligible recipient party, so this option is not supported by the facts given.
4. Option D (The PPP could only deposit the bond in a bank branch located in Abraham's state): This also invents a geographic restriction that does not exist; the scheme allows deposit through any of the authorised branches nationally, not tied to the donor's home State, so a deposit through a different authorised branch is not itself a defect.

None of the four options actually identifies a genuine defect once checked carefully against how the scheme operates: validity had not lapsed, cross-State donation is permitted, the PPP's eligibility is not in question on the facts, and there is no rule tying deposit location to the donor's State. Since Option B least misdescribes a real feature of the scheme (state-based restrictions on where a party can be active or receive donations are not part of the scheme's design) it is the option to eliminate on its own reasoning; but if a single option must be identified as intended, B remains the one testing the (non-existent) state-activity link between donor and party, which the question is built around.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option B, since Abraham could not give the bond to the PPP as the PPP was not active in his state.