Resources › CA MCQ Practice
28 May 2026Polity & Governance3 questions

Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bonds Scheme — SBI Disclosure Ordered

UPSC-standard MCQs with explanations, trap analysis, and approach guide. Answer after the test — not before.

1

Easy

1

Medium

1

Hard

Practice this set

3 questions · full analysis after submission · no sign-up required

Start test →Read the article first

Article summary

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme, 2018, as unconstitutional in February 2024, holding that anonymous political funding violates the voters' right to information under Article 19(1)(a). The Court ordered the State Bank of India to submit all bond purchase and encashment data to the Election Commission of India for public disclosure. The judgment is the most significant electoral reform ruling since the 2013 PUCL judgment that decriminalised note-NOTA and the 2003 ADR judgment mandating candidate disclosure.

What this tests

recallTests whether you read the article and retained key facts.
1Q
applicationTests whether you can apply the concept to a new scenario.
1Q
analysisTests whether you can reason across multiple related facts.
1Q

Sample questions — answers revealed after test

Polity & GovernanceRecallEasy

Q1. With reference to the Electoral Bonds Scheme, 2018, which of the following statements is correct?

AElectoral bonds were issued by the Reserve Bank of India in denominations ranging from ₹1,000 to ₹1 crore and were valid for 30 days from the date of purchase.
BThe scheme was introduced through the Finance Act 2017 and operationalised in 2018; bonds were issued exclusively by the State Bank of India and were valid for 15 days from purchase.
CPrior to the Electoral Bonds Scheme, companies were permitted to donate any amount to political parties without restriction under Section 182 of the Companies Act, 2013.
DThe Supreme Court struck down the scheme by a majority of 4:1, with one judge dissenting on grounds of donor privacy under Article 21.
Answer revealed after you submit the test
Polity & GovernanceApplicationMedium

Q2. A registered political party receives a large donation through an electoral bond purchased by a major pharmaceutical company that is simultaneously under regulatory scrutiny by a government body. A citizen files a petition arguing that the public has a right to know about this transaction. Which of the following best identifies the constitutional provision and the judicial precedent most directly applicable to adjudicate this claim?

AArticle 21 (right to life and personal liberty) — the donor company's privacy interest in its financial transactions would be the primary constitutional concern, as upheld in the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment.
BArticle 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression, including the right to know) — the Supreme Court in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India held that anonymous electoral funding violates voters' right to information, and donor privacy is not a proportionate restriction in electoral contexts.
CArticle 19(1)(g) (right to practise any profession or carry on any trade) — the company's right to make commercial decisions, including political donations, is a fundamental right that cannot be curtailed without a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6).
DArticle 14 (right to equality) — the citizen's petition would succeed on grounds that differential treatment between corporate and individual donors under the Electoral Bonds Scheme violates the equal protection clause.
Answer revealed after you submit the test
Polity & GovernanceAnalysisHard

Q3. Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's judgment striking down the Electoral Bonds Scheme in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024): 1. The judgment was delivered by a five-judge constitutional bench and was unanimous, with no dissenting opinion. 2. The Court applied the proportionality test and held that the removal of the 7.5% profit cap on corporate political donations, combined with anonymity, created structural conditions for quid pro quo arrangements. 3. The Court directed the Election Commission of India to publish the donor-party match data, and this was done by the Reserve Bank of India in March 2024. 4. The scheme's introduction via the Finance Act 2017, classified as a Money Bill, was itself a point of constitutional contestation in the case. Which of the statements given above are correct?

A1, 2 and 4 only
B1, 3 and 4 only
C2 and 3 only
D1, 2, 3 and 4
Answer revealed after you submit the test
Practice all 3 questions →All CA MCQ sets