In India, why are some nuclear reactors kept under “IAEA Safeguards” while others are not?

The answer is B because safeguards follow the source of fuel and the terms of supply, not who owns the plant. Reactors fuelled by imported uranium, or built under foreign supply arrangements, carry IAEA safeguards as a condition of that supply. Domestically fuelled reactors, built from indigenous natural uranium and thorium-linked programmes, were outside IAEA safeguards for a long time.

The position changed after the 2008 India-US civil nuclear deal and India's Separation Plan, which placed 14 civilian reactors under the India-specific IAEA safeguards agreement. So the old imported-versus-domestic split is now more about which facilities are declared and what conditions attach to them. Check the current status before relying on either version.

• A is wrong: Both categories of reactors run on uranium. Thorium is a future fuel cycle and does not explain the safeguards split.
• C is wrong: Nuclear power in India is run mainly by NPCIL, a public sector company under the DAE. Operator nationality is not the criterion.
• D is wrong: All power reactors are state-owned. Private ownership of reactors is not permitted, so there is no state versus private split to explain safeguards.

Mains link: this ties into India's non-proliferation stance, its NSG waiver, and the balance between energy security and strategic autonomy.

Trap: candidates pick C or D because they sound like administrative differences. Safeguards attach to fuel and supply agreements, not to operators or owners.