The ambitious Google-led hyperscale data centres coming up in the coastal Andhra city of Visakhapatnam have raised the hackles of environmentalists, who contend that the projects would adversely affect local livelihoods and harm the environment. The concerns are directed at the Environmental Clearances (ECs) recently granted by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for two hyperscale data centre parks—Vizag Mega Data Center Park Limited in Tarluvada and Vizag Rambilli Data Center Park Limited in Rambilli.
The environmental groups and rights activists have dubbed the clearances as flawed and demanded that both projects be reclassified and subjected to fresh appraisals through full Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), with statutory public hearings held in all affected villages. The Human Rights Forum (HRF) has demanded the immediate suspension of Environmental Clearances (ECs) granted to them, alleging serious procedural lapses, regulatory violations, and the exclusion of affected communities from the decision-making process.
The rights body has called for the projects to be reclassified and subjected to fresh appraisal through comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), including mandatory public hearings in all affected villages. It argued that the current approvals were based on a “deeply flawed” process that bypassed environmental safeguards and denied local communities a voice.
HRF further pointed out that the projects were initially conceived as a single 1 GW Google-led hyperscale AI data centre, but have since been split into two separate 1 GW facilities—one each at Tarluvada and Rambilli.
The combined scale of the two projects is substantial. Together, they are expected to require a grid power demand of 1,626 MW. In addition, they would rely on approximately 354 diesel generators with a combined backup capacity of 971.5 MW, supported by on-site high-speed diesel storage of 2,520 kilolitres.
Despite this scale, HRF noted that both projects were classified under Schedule 8(a) — “Building and Construction Projects” — Category B2 of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. This classification exempts projects from conducting a full EIA, obtaining Terms of Reference, and holding statutory public hearings.
“This single act of classification effectively eliminates any opportunity for public participation and detailed environmental scrutiny,” HRF said, adding that while the “letter of the law” may have been followed, its “democratic spirit” had been undermined.
The organisation flagged several critical issues that it said were inadequately examined during the appraisal process. These include —
-The actual water requirements of the data centres.
-Air pollution impacts from large-scale diesel generator use.
-Potential effects on nearby forests and wildlife habitats.
-Cumulative environmental and social impacts on surrounding communities.
“Fundamental questions have gone unasked,” HRF said, describing the appraisal process as a “narrow, formal exercise stripped of purpose.” HRF further emphasised that hyperscale data centres are not conventional infrastructure projects but large industrial installations with significant energy and water demands and a substantial environmental footprint.
“Classifying them as building and construction projects is a clear attempt to avoid comprehensive scrutiny,” the HRF alleged in a statement.
The organisation also questioned the economic justification of the projects, citing official estimates from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC). According to these figures, the Rambilli project is expected to generate around 650 permanent jobs, while the Tarluvada facility would create approximately 575 positions.
“These numbers are negligible,” HRF said.
A key concern raised by HRF is the exclusion of local communities from the approval process. By categorising the projects under a provision that does not require public hearings, the authorities effectively denied residents the opportunity to access information, raise concerns, or participate in decision-making.
“The residents of Tarluvada and Rambilli, who will bear the environmental and social consequences, were never consulted,” the statement said. “This violates the right to participation, which is integral to the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
HRF accused both the SEIAA and SEAC of failing to discharge their statutory responsibilities. It is alleged that the authorities accepted generic project documents without critical evaluation and confined their appraisal to limited pollution parameters, ignoring broader environmental and social impacts.
“There is a conspicuous absence of independent scrutiny and transparency in decision-making,” the organisation said.
The twin approvals, HRF argued, reflect a broader pattern of regulatory frameworks being manipulated to fast-track large projects by placing them in inappropriate categories. “This reduces environmental assessment to form without substance and excludes communities through procedural design,” the HRF said.
Follow us
