Performance Audit on Implementation of Jal Jeevan Mission in Karnataka

Findings

1. Only 47.62 lakh (66 per cent) FHTCs were provided against the target of 72.14 lakh households as of November 2024. The State received only ₹11,189 crore out of ₹24,819.48 crore allocated by the Centre — the Centre withheld funds specifically because Karnataka could not utilise what had already been released. Community contributions, which were to fund 15 per cent of scheme costs under in-village infrastructure, stood at ₹22.57 crore against the expected ₹1,594.90 crore (1.4 per cent), effectively nullifying a core pillar of the mission design.

   “FHTCs were provided to 47.62 lakh (66 per cent) HHs as of November 2024.”Ch.III §3.1.1 · p. 20

2. Not a single one of the 31 district-level and 48 taluk-level water quality testing laboratories in Karnataka was equipped to test all 13 prescribed parameters under BIS IS:10500. 37 per cent of existing labs lacked NABL accreditation. Water quality testing was not conducted in schools and Anganwadi centres as per the prescribed frequency. Without functional quality testing, the JJM guarantee of "safe" piped water is unverifiable across the entire State.

   “none of the 31 district level and 48 taluk level laboratories in the State”Ch.IV §4.4 · p. 53

3. The Village Water and Sanitation Committees (VWSCs) and District Water Sanitation Missions (DWSMs) that are the institutional backbone of JJM were largely non-functional. None of the 30 districts held the mandated 12 DWSM meetings in 2023-24; 13 districts held zero meetings. Village Action Plans (VAPs) omitted crucial elements such as source sustainability, financial sustainability provisions and groundwater data. The Apex Committee was not represented by heads of Health, Finance and Planning departments.

   “none of the districts had conducted the mandated 12 meetings during the years 2019-20 and 2023-24”Ch.II §2.1.2 · p. 18

4. Five villages were prematurely declared as 100 per cent FHTC-covered in official dashboards while tap connection works were still incomplete. Third-party evaluation reports lacked depth and independent performance assessments were delayed. 27 per cent of surveyed beneficiaries reported no involvement in JJM planning; 80 per cent community approval for scheme finalisation as required by guidelines was not obtained in many surveyed villages.

   “in four1 of these villages, the declared 100 per cent completion”Ch.III §3.1.2 · p. 24

5. Implementation Support Agencies (ISRA) were severely underperforming: from 103 per cent achievement in 2021-22, their performance fell to 59 per cent in 2022-23 and further to 22 per cent in 2023-24 in the test-checked districts. Gaps in deployment of trained and skilled manpower were observed. Works were awarded to contractors without ensuring availability of land, leading to multiple instances of abandoned or partially-executed schemes.

   “performance in the test-checked districts declined from 103 per cent in 2021-22 to 59 per cent in 2022-23”Ch.III §3.2.2 · p. 36

6. The State failed to leverage convergence with other schemes (MGNREGS, SBM-G, MPLADS, 15th Finance Commission tied grants) to augment financial resources. No financial plan pooling available resources was prepared in test-checked districts. The 15th Finance Commission tied grants of ₹1,358 crore and ₹2,220.18 crore in community contributions remained un-mobilised. Expenditure on water quality monitoring and surveillance was only ₹22.57 crore against a provisioned ₹1,594.90 crore.

   “community contribution collected was ₹22.57 crore against the estimated ₹1,594.90 crore”Ch.IV §4.3 · p. 53

7. 66%FHTCs provided vs target of 72.14 lakh households

   47.62 lakh FHTCs provided as of November 2024 out of 72.14 lakh targeted — a shortfall of 24.52 lakh households (34 per cent). FHTC coverage in multiple districts was below 60 per cent.

   “FHTCs were provided to 47.62 lakh (66 per cent) HHs as of November 2024.”Ch.III §3.1.1 · p. 20

8. 45%Central allocation actually received by the State

   Karnataka received only ₹11,189 crore against an allocation of ₹24,819.48 crore — the Centre withheld funds due to the State's inability to utilise already-released amounts. State's own share contribution of ₹1,594.90 crore saw only ₹22.57 crore actually collected.

   “11,189.37”Ch.IV §4.1 · p. 49

9. 1.4%Community contribution collected vs expected ₹1,594.90 crore

   ₹22.57 crore collected out of ₹1,594.90 crore expected as community contribution for in-village infrastructure — a near-complete failure of the participatory funding model. This also compromised the sustainability of installed schemes.

   “community contribution collected was ₹22.57 crore against the estimated ₹1,594.90 crore”Ch.IV §4.3 · p. 53

10. 0 of 31District-level labs equipped for all 13 water quality parameters

    None of the 31 district-level and 48 taluk-level laboratories in Karnataka were equipped to test all 13 prescribed parameters under BIS IS:10500. 37 per cent of existing labs lacked NABL accreditation. Water testing in schools and Anganwadi centres was not done at prescribed frequency.

    “none of the 31 district level and 48 taluk level laboratories in the State”Ch.IV §4.4 · p. 53

11. 22%FHTC target achievement (ISRA) in selected districts by 2023-24

    The overall target achievement by the Implementation Support and Review Agency (ISRA) during 2023-24 in the selected districts was only 22 per cent. Performance fell from 103 per cent in 2021-22 to 59 per cent in 2022-23, and further to 22 per cent in 2023-24.

    “performance in the test-checked districts declined from 103 per cent in 2021-22 to 59 per cent in 2022-23”Ch.III §3.2.2 · p. 36

12. 0 of 30Districts that held mandated 12 District Water Sanitation Mission meetings in 2023-24

    None of the 30 districts conducted the mandated 12 DWSM meetings during 2023-24. 13 districts including 4 sampled districts held zero meetings that year. The Apex Committee lacked representation from heads of Health, Finance and Planning departments.

    “none of the districts had conducted the mandated 12 meetings during the years 2019-20 and 2023-24”Ch.II §2.1.2 · p. 18

13. 5 villagesVillages prematurely declared 100% FHTC complete (but works not finished)

    Audit joint physical verification found that in 5 villages declared as 100 per cent FHTC-covered, household tap connection works were in fact still incomplete. Premature certification inflated progress data on the JJM dashboard.

    “in four1 of these villages, the declared 100 per cent completion”Ch.III §3.1.2 · p. 24

14. 41% wastedWork contract (₹146.64 lakh) abandoned after spending ₹60.41 lakh

    One water supply scheme contract of ₹146.64 lakh was abandoned after incurring an expenditure of ₹60.41 lakh; a different contractor had to be engaged from scratch. Similar instances of abandoned and idle works were found across sampled districts.

    “incurring an expenditure of ₹60.41 lakh (May 2024), towards construction”Ch.III §3.1.2 · p. 24

15. 27%Beneficiaries unaware of JJM planning in surveyed villages

    27 per cent of Focus Group Discussion respondents reported non-involvement in JJM planning; 32 per cent were unaware of user charges to be collected for scheme sustainability. Only 5 per cent of surveyed beneficiaries were aware of scheme details.

    “Out of the FGD respondents 27 per cent reported non-involvement”Ch.III §3.4 · p. 42

16. ₹51.86 lakhWater schemes: GP approval of scheme contract issued to contractor

    One Gram Panchayat entrusted (October 2023) a water supply scheme worth ₹51.86 lakh to a contractor with a completion period of four months, without ensuring land availability — leading to delayed execution and non-completion.

    “Gram Panchayat was entrusted (October 2023) to a contractor for ₹146.64 lakh”Ch.III §3.1.2 · p. 24

Recommendations

1. Direct DWSM committees to hold all mandated meetings; link District Action Plan approval to evidence of meetings held with minutes.
2. Prioritise NABL accreditation for all district and taluk labs; ensure all 13 prescribed parameters are testable before any village is certified as Har Ghar Jal.
3. Stop prematurely certifying villages as 100 per cent FHTC-covered; link dashboard reporting to joint physical verification by Gram Panchayats and third-party agencies.
4. Mobilise community contributions through Gram Sabhas and ensure user charge collection frameworks are in place before scheme hand-over.
5. Leverage 15th Finance Commission tied grants and MGNREGS convergence to complete incomplete water supply schemes in priority areas.

Fact-checks citing this report

• ◐Partly accurateWe will launch 'Jal Jivan Mission' under which we will introduce a special programme, 'Nal se Jal' to ensure piped water for every household by 2024.
• ✓Accurate14+ crore families have access to clean tap water under the Jal Jeevan Mission… We will ensure clean drinking water, Har Ghar Nal se Jal for all households in villages, towns and cities.