Headline: “Façade of Green Growth” – HRF Demands Transparency over Visakhapatnam Data Centre Projects, Accuses Minister of Evasion
By [Staff Reporter]
Published: Aug 22, 2026 | 10:58 AM
Visakhapatnam: The Human Rights Forum (HRF) has fiercely rebutted Andhra Pradesh IT Minister Nara Lokesh’s assurances regarding the environmental impact of the proposed hyperscale AI data centres near Visakhapatnam, accusing the government of evasiveness, secrecy, and a “façade of green growth.” In a detailed press release issued on Friday, August 21, the rights body, which has been leading the charge against the projects, systematically dismantled the Minister’s claims that environmental responsibility is being prioritised and demanded full disclosure of project details to the public. The statement comes just days after the Minister addressed the Assembly on August 19, defending the projects’ water and power requirements and dismissing concerns as “misinformation.”
The core of the HRF’s contention is that the government’s own record contradicts its stated commitment to environmental stewardship. The organisation zeroed in on the location of the Google-Adani 512 MW project at Adavivaram, which it claims is situated a mere 120 metres from the Mudasarlova reservoir, a critical source of drinking water for the city. “How was environmental responsibility ‘prioritised’ when a hyperscale AI data center is being established virtually within the catchment of Mudasarlova reservoir?” the HRF questioned, arguing that the fundamental issue is not about mitigating harm but about the legality and wisdom of siting such an industrial installation in a protected catchment area in the first place.
Further corroborating its allegations of procedural violations, the HRF highlighted that site development and alteration to the Adavivaram landscape began as early as February 2026, months before the Environmental Clearance (EC) was even formally granted. The organisation pointed to extensive hill cutting taking place in the Pedda Chukka Konda reserve forest area, warning that this is actively damaging the natural drainage systems that feed downstream water bodies, including the Gambheeram reservoir. “These are not imaginary future impacts. The landscape is already being changed,” the release stated, framing the issue as an imminent ecological crisis rather than a hypothetical risk.
Beyond the physical location, the HRF criticised the procedural route taken to approve the projects, specifically the classification of the data centres under Category B2. This classification, the organisation argued, has conveniently bypassed the more rigorous and transparent Full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the mandated public-hearing process. The statement also raised serious concerns about the projects’ encroachment on the ecologically fragile Kambalakonda Wildlife Sanctuary, asking why such large-scale proposals have not been appraised by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, rather than being cleared at the State level. This, they argue, reflects a “dubious shortcut” in the regulatory framework.
On the critical issue of water consumption, a major point of friction in a city already grappling with shortages, the HRF exposed what they claim are glaring inconsistencies in the government’s own calculations. While Minister Lokesh suggested the 6.5-GW ecosystem would need “only 1 TMC” annually, Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu has quoted a significantly higher figure of 3.5 TMC. The HRF noted that the Minister has since revised his estimate to 3 TMC, highlighting a 200% discrepancy in official figures that “is not a rounding error” but amounts to roughly 14.2 billion litres per year. The organisation challenged the government to clarify how this water will be sourced from the Polavaram Project’s industrial allocation, questioning the legal basis and whether it will supersede drinking water needs.
The HRF argues that the government’s assertion that the Godavari is a large river does not automatically make water freely available. It demanded disclosure of the exact volume formally earmarked for the data centres, the priority it holds over agricultural and domestic needs, and the financial terms of the dedicated pipelines required to transport it. “To tell citizens that their water is safe… is to confuse the plumbing with the politics of water,” the release read, insisting that every TMC allocated to a data centre is one less unit available for competing, and arguably more essential, uses. The organisation further pointed to the “irony” of the government’s claims, noting that the Babu Jagjivan Ram Uttarandhra Sujala Sravanthi (USS) project, intended to quench the thirst of the drought-prone North Andhra region, has remained largely stalled at just 2 per cent physical progress.
The HRF also took aim at the government’s energy strategy, dismissing the “green energy” label attached to the projects. While operators are mandated to source 70 per cent of their power from renewable sources, the HRF argued that this does not equate to zero environmental impact, citing the vast land, transmission infrastructure, and materials required for solar and wind projects, as well as the environmental damage from proposed Pumped Storage Projects in the Eastern Ghats. The organisation also exposed the fallacy in the Minister’s comparison of data centres to thermal plants, asserting that the fact a thermal plant uses more water does not make a data centre “benign.” A 6.5-GW ecosystem, they argued, represents an enormous and continuous demand for electricity, placing immense strain on the grid and necessitating significant generation infrastructure.
Deconstructing the promise of widespread employment, the HRF noted that the Minister has implicitly conceded that direct permanent jobs at the data centres will be limited, instead touting a “wider ecosystem” of ancillary businesses. The organisation demanded a clear specification of the number of permanent direct jobs, skilled local employment opportunities, and the legally enforceable contractual commitments made by the tech giants. “Spectacular job numbers risk becoming little more than investment propaganda,” the HRF warned, chastising the government for swapping concrete employment guarantees for projections. At its core, the HRF’s release poses a fundamental question of public interest: “What exactly is Andhra Pradesh receiving in return?” It demands to know the concessions granted and the public subsidies involved for a project from which “some of the world’s largest technology corporations” will primarily benefit.
Concluding its extensive critique, the HRF rejected the government’s attempt to frame its criticisms as “misinformation” or “ecological recklessness,” asserting that it is the government itself which is guilty of evasiveness. It pointed to the reluctance to provide comprehensive information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, citing frequent claims of “confidentiality” and the suppression of dissent on social media. “A government cannot claim to act in the public interest while keeping the public in the dark,” the release stated, demanding that the government place all environmental assessments, cumulative impact studies, and financial agreements in the public domain. “The scale of these projects demands full disclosure, independent scrutiny and public debate, not secrecy and faits accomplis,” the HRF concluded, calling for an immediate and transparent re-evaluation of the project’s approval.