The Human Rights Forum (HRF) demands the immediate suspension of the Environmental Clearances (ECs) granted on 18 April 2026 by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) to two hyperscale data-center parks – in Tarluvada (Vizag Mega Data Center Park Limited) and Rambilli (Vizag Rambilli Data Center Park Limited). The projects must be reclassified and subjected to a fresh appraisal through full Environmental Impact Assessments, with statutory public hearings conducted in all affected villages. These urgent steps are necessary in light of a deeply flawed clearance process that has bypassed environmental safeguards and excluded local communities. Taken together, these approvals point not to an isolated lapse, but to a systemic failure of environmental governance in Andhra Pradesh.
HRF has examined the EC orders, the Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) prepared by M/s Pridhvi Envirotech (P) Limited in both cases, and the State Expert Appraisal committee (SEAC) meeting minutes. What was initially presented as a single Google-led hyperscale AI data center with a capacity of 1 GW (1000 MW) has now taken the form of two separate hyperscale AI data centers, each with a capacity of 1 GW. These comprise a 1 GW data center park at Tarluvada in Visakhapatnam district and another 1 GW park at Rambilli in Anakapalli district, both owned by the Adani Group.
It is our considered view that these clearances fall far short of acceptable environmental and regulatory standards. The two filings are not independent assessments but identical, template-based submissions reproduced across projects and approved without meaningful scrutiny. This has reduced the clearance process to a hollow, procedural exercise devoid of substance.
Together, the two projects entail a combined grid demand of 1,626 MW, a backup diesel fleet of approximately 354 generators with a total capacity of 971.5 MW, and on-site High-Speed Diesel (HSD) storage of 2,520 kilolitres. By any reasonable standard, these are major industrial installations. Yet, both have been filed and cleared under Schedule item 8(a), “Building /Construction Projects”, Category B2 of the EIA Notification 2006. This single act of classification removes, in both cases, the requirement of a full EIA report, the need for Scoping and Terms of Reference, the requirement of a statutory Public Hearing at or near the project site, and any structured opportunity for residents to ask questions, or place their concerns on record. While the legal letter may have been followed, its democratic spirit has been effectively emptied.
The record clearly shows that these projects, which are of unprecedented scale, have not been independently or rigorously appraised. Instead, they have been processed through near-identical documentation, assumptions, and conclusions. This is not expert scrutiny; it is mere replication. In fact, fundamental questions have gone unasked. For instance, what is the true water demand of these facilities? What will be the air-quality impact of large-scale diesel backup systems? What are the consequences for forests and wildlife habitats in the proximity and what are the cumulative impacts on surrounding communities? None of these or several other critical concerns have been meaningfully addressed. The appraisal process has been reduced to a narrow, formal exercise, stripped of purpose. In effect, the State’s expert bodies have reduced environmental appraisal to little more than a paperwork formality.
It must be recognised that these data centers are no ordinary infrastructure projects. They are massive, energy and water-intensive industrial installations and involve significant land and resource footprints. Yet they have been treated as benign infrastructure. As stated, they have both been classified under a regulatory category intended for building and construction! This is clearly an approach meant to avoid comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessments, public hearings and detailed scrutiny of alternatives and impacts. This is not a mere technicality but the very mechanism through which meaningful scrutiny has been evaded.
As we have repeatedly pointed out, these hyperscale data centers, despite official claims, create only a negligible number of jobs. Even by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change’s (MoEF&CC’s) own figures, the Rambilli facility will ‘likely generate’ just 650 permanent positions and the Tarluvada project 575. Far from delivering any meaningful employment, these figures expose how little these projects offer in return for their vast footprint, marked by, among other things, enormous water and energy consumption.
HRF contends that the clearance process suffers from a fundamental democratic deficit, as the affected communities have been systematically excluded and their rights effectively denied. By placing these projects in a category that exempts them from public hearings, the State has ensured that the local people were not informed, never consulted or heard. The residents of Tarluvada and Rambilli, who will principally bear the environmental and social consequences, have been denied any role in the decision-making process. They were never given a chance to ask questions, raise concerns or access project information in their own language. The right to participation in environmental decision-making is not optional. It is integral to the Right to Life under Article 21, as recognised by the Supreme Court of India.
We believe the SEIAA and the SEAC have failed to discharge their statutory responsibilities. This is evident in their acceptance of generic, template-based project documents, at times bordering on the farcical, and in their failure to interrogate inconsistencies and omissions. The appraisal has been narrowly confined to limited pollution parameters with little regard to broader environmental and social impacts. There is also a conspicuous absence of independent and critical scrutiny and lack of transparency in decision-making. Clearly, this falls short of the standards expected of sound environmental governance.
Importantly, these twin approvals reveal a broader pattern. They illustrate how regulatory frameworks are manipulated to fast-track large projects by not-so-cleverly placing them in inappropriate categories. They reveal how environmental assessment is reduced to form without substance, a mockery. They also point to how procedural design can be used to exclude communities. By no stretch of imagination can this be considered governance in the public interest.
HRF reiterates that these clearances expose a collapse of environmental governance, warranting immediate corrective action. We call for suspension of both Environmental Clearancespending a fresh and credible review. The projects must be reclassified in accordance with their actual scale and full Environmental Impact Assessments, including mandatory public hearings in Tarluvada and Rambilli, must be undertaken. Independent, project-specific studies must be commissioned through credible, accredited institutions to comprehensively assess environmental, ecological and social impacts through credible and accredited institutions. These assessments must rigorously examine water use, air pollution, ecological impact, hazard risks and climate implications. All construction and preparatory activities should be halted until a thorough and transparent reappraisal of both projects is completed.
As HRF has demanded in the past, a full public disclosure of all project documents, regulatory records and land allocation details must be ensured. In the public interest, the ownership structures and commercial arrangements of both project entities must also be made transparent. Compliance with all safety and hazardous materials regulations must be independently verified. Community monitoring and engagement mechanisms, including regular public reporting of environmental indicators, ought to be established.
HRF believes that what is at stake is not just these two projects, but the credibility of environmental governance in the State with far-reaching consequences for thousands of people and fragile ecosystems. We are firmly opposed to the systematic erosion of environmental safeguards and the exclusion of people from decisions that affect their lives. Environmental regulation cannot be reduced to a rubber stamp clearance regime. It must function as a robust system of protection for communities, ecosystems and our collective future.
We call upon the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to review the classification of data centersunder the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) framework and establish a dedicated regulatory category that reflects their true scale and impact. Such facilities require clear thresholds, strong safeguards and mandatory provisions for genuine public participation.
Y Rajesh – HRF AP State general secretary
G Rohith – HRF AP State secretary
VS Krishna – HRF AP & TG Coordination Committee member
27-4-2026,
Visakhapatnam.