“They are being given clearance with virtually zero environmental oversight, as though they’re just buildings, warehouses.” 15.10.2026 – Apocalypse Now and Then – Arundhati Roy

In “Apocalypse Now and Then” (Equator, 15 October 2026), Arundhati Roy claims that the environmental regulation of data centres in India has been relegated to almost nil levels, “as if they are ordinary buildings or mere warehouses.” This statement may be rhetorical but the relevant legislation is real. The most high-profile project being objected to – the Google-Adani hyperscale facility in Visakhapatnam – was approved as a mere building. This article asserts that supervision has actually been done, but it was based on the standard applicable to office parks and now, after the Supreme Court decision, it is the executive power that needs to solve the problem given the circumstances.

Arundhati Roy in her Essay “Apocalypse Now and Then” has pointed out that Artificial Intelligence is not only a new technology but a tool which is disruptive in nature and the consequences of its impact depends squarely on the fact of who owns it, benefits from it, pays its costs, and gets to decide how it is used. One aspect of her essay covers Data Centres which she describes being treated akin to warehouses or just as buildings. In India, they are obtaining environmental clearance under the category of buildings.

For conservational and sustainability reasons, under EIA Notification, 2006 (S.O. 1533(E)), issued under sections 3(1) and 3(2)(v) the Environment Protection Act, 1986, construction or land preparation for scheduled projects is barred until an environmental clearance is acquired.[i] This yardstick as per Supreme Court gives expression to the precautionary principle at the very stage where precaution is possible before the harm occurs.[ii] The question arises if oversight with this yardstick is effective.

Clearance of Data Centres

A Data Centre is a physical location particularly a room, building or facility that houses IT infrastructure for building, running and delivering applications and services.[iii]

Data Centres are not in the schedule. The usual route of clearance is under item 8(a) concerning buildings and construction projects with a build-up area of at least 20,000 and below 1,50,000 sq m. Projects falling under these criteria classified under Category B activities, cleared by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) on the State Expert Appraisal Committee’s advice.[iv] The term “built-up area” refers to the areas covered by the construction on all floor including basements and service areas.[v] Category B has two further subcategories, which are B1 and B2, of which the former is required to complete an assessment of environmental impact. The judiciary has ruled that “public consultation” is a requirement in respect of projects in Category A and subcategory B1, while no such requirements is imposed in respect of projects in subcategory B2.[vi]

This section of the notification under “General Condition” treats Category B project as a category an issue in the case of a project located near a protected area. The distance involved is now 5 kilo meters and not the original distance of 10 kilo meters, while the Indian Supreme Court has ruled that the above-mentioned condition has never included items 8(a) to 8(b).[vii]

What Clearance Was Obtained at Visakhapatnam

The information presented here comes from SEIAA’s affidavit filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, as per The Print.[viii] The application was submitted on item number 8(a), Category B2, as data centre operations are not listed as an activity. The project is spread over 160 acres with a built-up area of approximately 1.23 lakh sq m, and has been cleared on June 5, 2026. It requires approximately 307 kilolitres of water and 512 MW of electricity and 100 backup generators. The location is about 120 metres away from Mudasarlova Reservoir, which supplies drinking water to the city, and 850 metres away from Kambalakonda Wildlife Sanctuary. The affidavit states that the committee reviewed the project for liquid, solid and air pollution control. The holder of the clearance is a special purpose vehicle of Adani Infra (India) Ltd.[ix] The issue is currently with two authorities.

 The High Court instructed the company to act at its own risk, mentioning that the State said the clearance was not under its review on October 12, 2026.[x] The National Green Tribunal has instructed the Centre to reply regarding the challenge to the clearance, the next hearing will take place on October 26, 2026.[xi]

The Government’s Statement

On August 6, 2026, in response to a question in the Rajya Sabha, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change explained that AI data centers do not require an environmental clearance unless they form part of a building project of more than 20,000 sq m or of a township project of over 50 hectares. The Ministry further pointed out that while appraising these projects, due considerations are given to the availability of freshwater, the water balance report and greywater reuse, and that air and water pollution are regulated by State Pollution Control Boards.[xii] The Government has also made it clear that it has no intention of bringing a separate clearance procedure for the AI data centres into place.[xiii]

Wrong Yardstick

The assertion made by Roy about Visakhapatnam being “zero oversight” doesn’t hold water since a review by an expert panel has been done and approval has been given with certain conditions. The most pertinent critique is that the system is designed to measure the wrong aspects for three reasons.

To begin with, the trigger is a building and not the load. The yardstick referred to in the item 8(a) deals with the covered area of the floor.[xiv] The load involved or power consumption or cooling on its own does not have any influence on triggering or evaluation of the category. In the case of Visakhapatnam, an approximate figure of 1.23 lakh sq m structure is associated with the reported power consumption of 512 MW but it is only the first figure which is relevant under the Schedule.

Secondly, the coverage of evaluations seems to be narrower than the description offered by the ministry. The ministry is of the opinion that water accounts are taken into account in the process of project developments, at the same time SEIAA affiliation states that evaluation of Visakhapatnam is solely based on pollution control.[xv] Hence, the two phrases do not mean the same thing, and minutes of the meeting will state which of the two is correct. In terms of power, neither phrase cites the need for electricity in the evaluation process.

Thirdly, the process is easier than for the project. Public consultation is a stage where those who may be affected are heard before the change in the environment is to take place; however, a B2 project has no public consultations held for it,[xvi] although this project is reported to be located 120 meters away from a drinking water reservoir.

Is it possible for courts to resolve issue?

In the Visakhapatnam case, advocate for the petitioner informed that the park is located close to a protected forest and is thereby classified under Category A.[xvii] The case refers to the Vanashakti v. Union of India verdict of 2025 by the Supreme Court delivered on August 5, 2025, in which the petitioners maintained that General Conditions applied to items 8(a) and 8(b). The Supreme Court refused the claim strictly based on the wording of the law according to which, the Schedule mentions the circumstances in which the Notification applies without specifically mentioning the entries. The Supreme Court noted that the previous requirement got modified to 5 kilometers distance and approved the 2025 Notification in every aspect except for industrial sheds and education buildings.[xviii] Thus, the Category A path is complicated. It can only be changed in the law through amendments to the Schedule and not through legal interpretation.

Precaution and Its Limits

According to the Supreme Court, it is essential to get prior environmental clearance in Vanashakti (29 July 2026) and that such clearance can be summed up in the phrase “look before you leap”.[xix] However, this particular case was concerned with post facto clearances and was not concerned with Data Centres, and hence the following discussion would use this particular judgment as reasoning but would not claim it as a precedent. The classic ruling is Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v Union of India which states that the precautionary principle requires preventive action, prohibits relying on scientific uncertainty to postpone prevention, and places the burden of proving that the activity is environmentally harmless on the developer.[xx] Additionally, these principles have been connected with Article 21.[xxi]

If due diligence is implemented before clearance, a clearance phase adjusted for the wrong factor renders meaningless the principle of content for that class of project. Asking how many square feet of space a data centre uses, but not how much energy and water it will consume, adheres to the form of due diligence, but without its substance. However, this analogy is limited; while the case in Vellore was about tanneries, it doesn’t help define the classification of data centers.

Counter-Argument

The most convincing counter-argument is judicial support and respect for definite experience and knowledge possessed by the SEIAA as a structured body.[xxii] In 2025 the Supreme Court stated that the SEIAA is better suited for evaluating projects in a particular state than the Central Government. It should be noted that the essence of the issue is not in the capabilities of the SEIAA but in the classification of it. The very judgment confirms that the construction of structures larger than 20,000 meters square has an effect on the environment.[xxiii] Also, it can be mentioned that water and air acts are applied. True but they control only drains and discharges while the question remains as to what is relevant to the site and size of the project.[xxiv] Finally, there is a reasonable argument for development because the capacity increased from 375 MW in 2020 to about 1,575 and the Government has provided tax exemption till 2047 for selected foreign cloud services. The capacity trigger does not remove Data Centres; it simply changes their control.

The Next Step

The Central Government may modify the Schedule by issuing a notification under sections 3(1) and 3(2)(v) of the Act and Rule 5(3)(d) of the Environmental (Protection) Rules, followed by a draft, objection and laying it before Parliament.[xxv] The Government has already amended item 8(a) of the Schedule when the 2025 notification defined built-up area and the Court invalidated one exemption as arbitrary.[xxvi] One option available is to apply the same powers to the Data Centre sector, which would make it more regular.

It is more capacity, rather than floor area, which ought to be taken as the criterion. Under the Scottish EIA directive enforced on September 17th, 2026, the assessment of Data Centres with capacity above 50 MW[xxvii] should be conducted, which is a good parallel despite the difference of the legal systems. Bigger facilities ought to undergo the full impact study and public hearings, as in the case of B1, giving the details of water and electricity consumption and their sources. This cannot be substituted for advisory advice. The Data Centre Evaluation Framework was introduced by NITI Aayog on 14 October 2026 as a tool to help States take important decisions without introducing any additional regulations.[xxviii] The issue was the same when amending the Notification on 13 July 2026 regarding State appraisal agencies, as it did not interfere with point 8(a).[xxix]

Roy points out that the government treats the technology working behind AI as simply another construction. For the time being, this is true for the law. The framework for regulating a Data Centre does not mean that it is not regulated altogether; however, if regulation involves just measuring the floors of a Data Centre and ignoring its energy and water supplies, this is a mistake. The Supreme Court has proven in Vanashakti that it interprets the Schedule throughout as it is written. Hence, the necessary actions have to be taken by the Ministry.

[i] ‘Environmentclearance.Nic.in/Report/EIA_Notifications.Aspx’ <https://environmentclearance.nic.in/report/EIA_Notifications.aspx> accessed 19 October 2026.

[ii] ‘Vanashakti vs Union Of India on 29 July, 2026’ <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/4715047/> accessed 19 October 2026.(para 25)

[iii] Stephanie Susnjara and Ian Smalley, ‘What Is a Data Center?’ (IBM Think) <https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/data-centers> accessed 19 October 2026.

[iv] ‘Vanashakti vs Union Of India on 5 August, 2025’ <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/101896470/> accessed 19 October 2026.(para 16)

[v] ibid.(para 19,39)

[vi] ‘Vanashakti vs Union Of India on 29 July, 2026’ (n 2). (para 25, fn 55, and the table at para 70.)

[vii] ‘Vanashakti vs Union Of India on 5 August, 2025’ (n 3). (paras 6, 17-19, 26-27.)

[viii] ‘Google-Adani Vizag Data Centre Got Green Nod on Built-up Area, Not Ops, Andhra Govt Affidavit Explains’ ThePrint <https://theprint.in/judiciary/google-adani-vizag-data-centre-got-green-nod-on-built-up-area-not-ops-andhra-govt-affidavit-explains/3025598/> accessed 19 October 2026.

[ix] ‘National Green Tribunal Seeks Centre’s Response To Plea Against Environmental Clearance For Google-Adani Vizag Data Centre’ LawChakra <https://lawchakra.in/other-courts/ngt-vizag-data-centre-clearance/> accessed 19 October 2026.

[x]  ‘Adani Visakhapatnam Data Centre Case’ Law.Asia <https://law.asia/adani-visakhapatnam-data-centre-case/> accessed 19 October 2026.

[xi]  ‘NGT Seeks Centre’s Reply On Vizag Data Centre Clearance’ Deccan Chronicle <https://www.deccanchronicle.com/southern-states/andhra-pradesh/ngt-seeks-centres-reply-on-vizag-data-centre-clearance-1996511> accessed 19 October 2026.

[xii]  ‘AI data centres don’t need standalone environmental clearance, says govt’ Business Standard <https://www.business-standard.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/ai-data-centres-do-not-need-standalone-environmental-clearance-126080601373_1.html> accessed 19 October 2026.

[xiii] ‘No separate environmental clearance framework for AI data centres: Union govt’ The News Minute <https://www.thenewsminute.com/news/no-separate-environmental-clearance-framework-for-ai-data-centres-union-govt> accessed 19 October 2026

[xiv] ‘Vanashakti vs Union Of India on 29 July, 2026’ (n 2). (paras 19, 39.)

[xv] ThePrint (n 7); Business Standard (n 11).

[xvi] Vanashakti 2026 (n 2) (para 25, 70.)

[xvii] ThePrint (n 7).

[xviii] Vanashakti 2025 (n 3) (para 6, 17–19, 26–27, 40–47.)

[xix] Vanashakti 2026 (n 2) (para 34.)

[xx] ‘Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647’ <https://app.vaquill.ai/cases/1996_INSC_952> accessed 19 October 2026; [1996] Supp 5 SCR 241, 256–258; paras 13–14 as cited in Vanashakti 2026 (n 2) fn 15.

[xxi] Vanashakti 2026 (n 2) (para 24.)

[xxii] Vanashakti 2025 (n 3) (para 31–37.)

[xxiii] Vanashakti 2025 (n 3) (para 42)

[xxiv] Business Standard (n 11); ‘NITI Aayog unveils data centre evaluation framework to guide states on sustainable growth’ IANS <https://morungexpress.com/niti-aayog-unveils-data-centre-evaluation-framework-to-guide-states-on-sustainable-growth> accessed 19 October 2026.

[xxv] Vanashakti 2026 (n 2) (para 23, 50)

[xxvi] Vanashakti 2025 (n 3) (para 19, 24, 39–43, 46.)

[xxvii] ‘Direction for new data centres’ Scottish Government <https://www.gov.scot/news/direction-for-new-data-centres/> accessed 19 October 2026.

[xxviii] ‘NITI Aayog’s Frontier Tech Hub releases Framework for sustainable data centers growth’ All India Radio News <https://newsonair.gov.in/niti-aayogs-frontier-tech-hub-releases-framework-for-sustainable-data-centers-growth/> accessed 19 October 2026.

[xxix] ‘MoEFCC Amends EIA Notification to Streamline SEIAA and SEAC Environmental Clearance Process’ Corpseed <https://www.corpseed.com/law-update/moefcc-amends-eia-notification-to-streamline-seiaa-and-seac-environmental-clearance-process> accessed 19 October 2026.