Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection  Line 74
"This study shows that the percentage of swells in the measured waves was 75 to 79% at the locations with higher percentage of swells in the northern portion of AS compared to that at the southern side."
 Unclear, please restate.
Line 112
 Chart datum is ambiguous. A chart datum is likely a meanlowlowerwater or some other tidal datum. A tidal datum is not a geodetic datum. In this era of sea levelrise consciousness, it would be nice to have the geodetic water levels quantified, but you seem unwilling to invest the effort. I don't see the advantage of belabouring this point since it's the relative change in sea level that is apparently the point of this text. Why not just avoid the technicality of understanding what a geodetic datum is, which one applies, the needed transformations from a chart or tidal datum, and just say that there is a 24 cm annual cycle in mean sea level from September to January.
Line 159
"An exponential curve y = k.f^b is fitted for highfrequency part of the spectrum"
 what is k.f? Apparently k is a coefficient?
Line 236
"Since the range of maximum spectral energy density in a year is large (~ 60 m^2 /Hz), each wave spectrum is normalised through dividing the spectral energy density by the maximum spectral energy density of that spectrum."
 So you are 'normalizing' each spectra independently. Why would one do this? This complicates the utility of the spectral amplitude since each spectra has it's own unique scaling and cannot be directly compared to another spectra, nor can actual water level amplitudes be recovered from the spectra without the specific scaling.
When you say that "each wave spectrum is normalised through dividing the spectral energy density by the maximum spectral energy density of that spectrum", are you literally normalizing each individual spectrum, or are you normalizing the entire spectrogram over each year? The former is unacceptable, the latter imposes that yeartoyear amplitude comparisons must be scaled.
To the point of spectral amplitudes, you note that wave spectra have physical units (m^2/Hz), thereby one can obtain an RMS wave height at any frequency if the spectral amplitude is known. Clearly that has been obviated by your normalization and the amplitude scale in figure 5 of [0,1].
The reader is not in a position to know how the spectral normalization is applied in time and to what extent individual spectra can be compared to each other, or that a physical measurement can be extracted from the data presented in figure 5. One of the strengths of this paper is its data coverage and analysis. To remove the ability for the reader to extract a physical amplitude from the data, or to have a uniform comparison across time is difficult to understand.
These same comments/issues apply to figure 9 and the monthly mean spectral amplitudes.
If one desires to address that "the range of maximum spectral energy density in a year is large", a conventional approach is express the spectral power in decibels.
Line 379
"The values for α and γ were randomly varied within a range to find out the values for which, the theoretical spectrum best fits the measured spectrum and those values were used to plot the theoretical spectrum."
 This issue remains unanswered. You have not specified what "randomly varied" and "over a range" mean. If your work is to be reproducible, should not you reveal the methods?  

Dear dr Sanil Kumar,
As you have seen both reviewers are quite happy with your revised manuscript. While reviewer #2 recommends acceptance in its current state, reviewer #1 has some suggestions for changes which you should introduce. Although he labels his suggestions as "technical corrections", one of them is quite severe. He argues that normalising the spectra makes it impossible for the reader to extract the physical amplitude of the data from the spectra. Please be very careful to account for this objection in your revised version. Explain carefully how yo normalized the spectra (individually or per year) and supply a possibility to extract the amplitude, e.g., by adding a table with the normalization coefficient.
With kind regards,
Andreas 
Dear Dr Sanil Kumar,
Thank you very much for your quick response. The paper is now in good shape to be accepted.
With kind regards,
Andreas Sterl 