For online IAS classes

For online IAS classes, Click Here, Click here.

Atal Bhujal Yojana


Paper: GS 2

Subject: Governance

Topic: Government policies and interventions aimed at development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation.


  • The World Bank has approved Atal Bhujal Yojana (ABHY), a Rs.6,000 Crore Central Sector Scheme, for sustainable management of ground water resources with community participation. The funding pattern is 50:50 between Government of India and World Bank.
  • The scheme envisages active participation of the communities in various activities such as formation of Water User Associations, monitoring and disseminating ground water data, water budgeting, preparation and implementation of Gram-Panchayat wise water security plans and Information, Education & Communication (IEC) activities related to sustainable ground water management.
  • The identified over-exploited and water stressed areas for the implementation of the scheme fall in the States of Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.

Mullaperiyar Dam Dispute


Paper: GS 2

Subject: Polity and Governance

Topic: Functions and responsibilities of the Union and the States, issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure, devolution of powers and finances up to local levels and challenges therein.

Timeline: of the Mullaperiyar dam:

1886 ·         The British (Madras presidency) built Mullaperiyar dam with a lease agreement with Kingdom of Travancore for 999 years.
1970 Governments of Kerala and Tamilnadu ratified this agreement.


Why controversy:


  • In mid-70s, Kerala became worried about leakage from the dam and wanted Tamil Nadu to repair it.
  • Kerala govt. communicated with union.
  • Union government directed Tamilnadu state government to
    • Repair this dam.
    • Keep water level in the dam at 145 feet.
  • Now, Union believed there is no longer any danger to the structure.
  • 2006: SC allowed Tamilandu to raise water height to 152 feet after strengthening the dam. (Total height of the dam is 176 feet).
  • But Kerala passed a law the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006, to prevent the neighboring State (TN) from raising the water level beyond 136 feet.
  • Tamilnadu challenged Kerala’s dam height law in Supreme court.


Kerala’s stand

Tamilnadu’s stand

·         if Mullaperiyar dam gets destroyed, it will also damage its Idduki dam down the course

·         Idduki is the largest source of hydroelectricity in Kerala

·         The broken Mullaperiyar dam can also damage Periyar National park and Periyar tiger reserve.

Without raising water level in this dam, we cannot sustain our agriculture and drinking water requirement.
this 119 year old dam poses danger to life and property nearly 4 million people downstream We’ve done adequate work to strengthen the dam structure.
There was a minor earthquake near dam site. Infact, we want to reduce water level further to 120 feet. Tremors were very minor. No danger to dam.
2010: Kerala demanded that entire dam be dismantled and we construct a new, stronger dam. (Kerala was ready to pay entire expense) Disagreed. For it’ll take lot time to setup new dam, what about the farm-irrigation in the meantime?

2010: Justice Anand Committee says dam is safe. Mullaperiyar dam poses no danger to idduki dam.
May 2014: Supreme Court order

  • Kerala dam Law of 2006 is unconstitutional and void.
  • Because Mullaperiyar is a dispute between two states. In such disputes, one state legislature cannot unilaterally enact law in its own favour.
  • Besides, in 2006 we had allowed Tamil Nadu to raise water height. By enacting g this law, Kerala is interfering with our judicial function.
  • Permitted Tamil Nadu to increase water level upto 142 feet. (present ~136ft)

June 2014:

  • Union government decided to setup a Committee to supervise this water rising.
  • Kerala planning to file a review petition in SC.
  • Kerala assembly requested President of India to refer the matter to the Supreme Court under Article 143

Setting Up of Internal Complaints Committee


Paper: GS 2

Subject: Polity and Governance

Topic: Functions and responsibilities of the Union and the States, issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure, devolution of powers and finances up to local levels and challenges therein.

  1. The constitution of Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) for receiving complaints of sexual harassment of women is mandatory in all Ministries/Departments of Union as well as State Governments and in the private sector too.
  2. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 mandates all the workplace which include any department, organisation, undertaking, establishment, enterprise, institution, office, branch or unit which is established, owned, controlled or wholly or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government or the local authority or a Government company or a corporation or a co-operative society having more than 10 workers to constitute Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) for receiving complaints of sexual harassment.