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on November 16, 2022, but the bank refuses to credit the bond to the party’s account, on the grounds that it was no longer valid.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 the changes to the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 mean that electoral bonds can be issued for an additional period of 15 days in any year, regardless of whether any elections are scheduled that year.
• B. Yes, since no elections were scheduled for Assad’s state in that year.
• C. Yes, since the Government had already sold some bonds in the 23^rd tranche in 2022
• D. No, since the changes to the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 provide that electoral bonds can be issued for an additional period of 15 days in years when there is an election to the Legislative Assembly of a State.
• 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• A. The bond was no longer valid.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 D

The correct option is (D): No, since the bond was valid on November 16, 2022.

Answer 2

An electoral bond, once purchased, carries a validity period running from its own date of issue, separate and distinct from the window during which the bank sells that tranche of bonds to the public. Assad's bond was purchased on November 9, 2022, and the question is whether it could still be credited when the PPP's representative deposited it on November 16, 2022.

1. Option (A): Assad's long history of supporting the PPP has no bearing on whether the bond was still valid on the date of deposit. Validity is a function of the 15 day window running from the date of issue, not the donor's relationship with the party, so this reasoning does not answer the actual dispute between the bank and the party.
2. Option (B): This confuses the tranche's sale window with the bond's individual validity period. November 9 to November 15 may be the period during which the bank was open to sell bonds under that tranche, but each bond's own 15 day validity clock starts running from the day it is issued to the purchaser. A bond bought on November 9 remains encashable through its own 15 day period, which extends well past November 15, so this option misreads the rule.
3. Option (C): Nothing in the facts suggests the deposit was made at an unauthorised branch; the representative simply deposited the bond with the bank that had issued it. Since this option invents a defect that the facts do not support, it cannot be the basis for the bank's refusal.
4. Option (D): Counting 15 calendar days from November 9, the bond remained valid well into the following week, comfortably covering November 16. The bank therefore had no valid ground to refuse crediting the amount, since the bond had not expired when it reached the party's account.

Because the bond's own 15 day validity period, measured from its date of purchase on November 9, had not lapsed by November 16, the bank's refusal was wrong.

Thus, the correct answer is No, since the bond was valid on November 16, 2022.

Answer 3

The correct option is (D): No, since the changes to the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 provide that electoral bonds can be issued for an additional period of 15 days in years when there is an election to the Legislative Assembly of a State.

Answer 4

Under the amended scheme, the government's power to open an extra 15 day sale window in a given year is tied to whether that year has an election to the Legislative Assembly of any State, not to whether elections are happening in the particular voter's own State. Assad's challenge to the 24th tranche needs to be tested against that amended trigger.

1. Option (A): This overstates the rule by dropping the election trigger altogether, suggesting an extra 15 day window is available in any year regardless of elections. That is not what the amendment provides; the additional window still depends on an election being scheduled, so this option misstates the condition even though its conclusion happens to favour the government.
2. Option (B): Assad's argument assumes the relevant election has to be in his own State, but the amended scheme asks only whether there is an Assembly election anywhere in the country that year. Since Assembly elections were indeed scheduled for other States in 2023, his state-specific objection does not defeat the government's power to issue the 24th tranche.
3. Option (C): The fact that some bonds had already been sold in the 23rd tranche the previous year has no bearing on whether a fresh 15 day window can be opened in 2023. The two tranches are governed independently by whether an election falls in the relevant year, so a prior year's sale does not restrict this year's issuance.
4. Option (D): This correctly captures the amended condition: an additional 15 day sale period is permitted in a year where elections are due to any State Legislative Assembly, regardless of which State that is. Since such elections were indeed scheduled for 2023, the government had the power to announce the 24th tranche, and Assad's objection fails.

Because the amendment ties the extra 15 day window to any State going to Assembly polls in that year, and not to elections in Assad's own State, the government validly had the power to issue the 24th tranche.

Thus, the correct answer is No, since the changes to the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 provide that electoral bonds can be issued for an additional period of 15 days in years when there is an election to the Legislative Assembly of a State.

Answer 5

The correct option is (B): No, since the party had already deposited the bond, and the money had been credited to its account.

Answer 6

Once a donor hands an electoral bond to a political party and the party deposits it, crediting the proceeds to its account, the transaction is complete on the banking side even if the bond's own validity period has not technically run out. Palak's claim to get her bond back needs to be tested against what had already happened to the money, not merely against the calendar.

1. Option (A): This states too broad a rule, that a donor can never ask for a bond back once it is handed to a party, without tying that conclusion to any particular stage of the transaction. If the bond were still sitting undeposited, there might be room to argue otherwise, so this sweeping statement is not the precise reason the PPP could refuse Palak.
2. Option (B): This targets the actual fact that decides the case: the bond had already been deposited and the money already credited to the party's account by the time Palak asked for it back. That step made the transaction final on the banking end, and a completed, credited deposit cannot simply be reversed on a donor's request.
3. Option (C): That Palak used her own money to buy the bond does not give her a continuing right to reclaim it after she has voluntarily handed it over and it has been deposited and credited. Ownership of the funds before purchase does not translate into a right of recall after the instrument has been redeemed.
4. Option (D): A change in the party's candidate list is a political disagreement, not a legal ground that unwinds a completed banking transaction. Her disappointment with the PPP's decision does not give her a right to reverse a deposit that has already been credited.

Because the bond had already been deposited and the proceeds credited to the PPP's account before Palak asked for it back, that completed transaction is what defeats her claim, not merely the fact that she once handed the bond to a party.

Thus, the correct answer is No, since the party had already deposited the bond, and the money had been credited to its account.

Answer 7

The correct option is (C): No, since it does not fulfil the eligibility criteria announced in the November 15, 2022 notification.

Answer 8

From November 15, 2022 onward, only political parties that had secured at least 1% of the votes polled in the last Lok Sabha election or the last Assembly election of a State are eligible to receive and deposit electoral bonds. The MPPP is being tested against this tightened threshold, and it is a newly formed party that has not yet contested any election at all.

1. Option (A): A prediction that a party is likely to win its first election says nothing about its past electoral performance, and the eligibility rule looks backward at votes already polled, not forward at expected success. This option answers a different question than the one the rule asks.
2. Option (B): This points to a November 7, 2022 notification, but the operative rule in force at the relevant time is the one announced on November 15, 2022, which is the criteria actually in effect for the 24th tranche. Citing the wrong notification date makes this option unreliable even setting aside that the MPPP could not meet any vote based threshold, having never contested an election.
3. Option (C): This reaches the right conclusion for the wrong reason, again invoking a November 7, 2022 notification that is not the criteria governing eligibility at the time the MPPP was to receive these bonds. The date attached to the rule matters, and this option gets it wrong.
4. Option (D): This correctly identifies both the outcome and the governing rule: as of November 15, 2022, a party must show at least 1% of the vote share in the last Lok Sabha or State Assembly election to be eligible, and the MPPP, never having contested an election, cannot meet that threshold.

Since the MPPP has no prior electoral record at all, it cannot satisfy the 1% vote share threshold imposed by the November 15, 2022 notification, and it is therefore ineligible to receive the bonds Palak wishes to give it.

Thus, the correct answer is No, since it does not fulfil the eligibility criteria announced in the November 15, 2022 notification.

Answer 9

The correct option is (A): The bond was no longer valid.

Answer 10

Each electoral bond carries its own 15 day validity period running from the date it is issued to the purchaser, and a bank is entitled to refuse crediting a bond once that window has closed. Abraham bought his bond during the sale of the 23rd tranche, and the representative did not present it for deposit until December 5, 2022, so the question is whether that gap exceeded 15 days.

1. Option (A): A tranche sale window of this kind runs for a matter of days early in the relevant period, so any bond bought during the 23rd tranche would have reached the end of its own 15 day validity well before December 5, 2022. On these facts, the bond had simply expired by the time it was deposited, which is a straightforward and sufficient reason for the bank to refuse payment.
2. Option (B): Nothing in the scheme requires a donor to give a bond only to a party active in the donor's own State. A purchaser is free to support any eligible party regardless of where that party operates, so Abraham giving his bond to a party active only in Assad's State creates no defect in the transaction.
3. Option (C): The facts describe the PPP as an established, actively contesting party, with nothing to suggest it fails the vote share eligibility threshold that applies to receiving bonds. Without some fact pointing to the PPP's ineligibility, this cannot be the reason the bank refused to credit the deposit.
4. Option (D): The scheme does not confine deposit of a bond to a bank branch in the purchaser's home State; an authorised branch anywhere can accept a valid bond for deposit. Since the facts do not indicate any such territorial restriction, this cannot explain the bank's refusal.

The most solid explanation is that the bond, issued during the 23rd tranche's sale window, had already run past its own 15 day validity period by the time it reached the bank on December 5, 2022.

Thus, the correct answer is The bond was no longer valid.