Published Sep 22, 2026 | 4:58 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 22, 2026 | 4:58 PM
HRF alleged that the Andhra Pradesh government was actively pushing the AI data centre projects while claiming to welcome public debate.
Synopsis: The restrictions highlighted that critical information was withheld, leaving citizens unable to properly assess the consequences of decisions that could fundamentally reshape the region. HRF said that instead of responding democratically, the government was silencing the questions.
The Human Rights Forum (HRF) has condemned Meta’s Instagram restriction of the citizen-led campaign “Stop Vizag Centers,” saying it suppressed a vital public-interest platform.
In a news statement released on Tuesday, 22 September, HRF said Meta’s latest action followed the restriction of nine posts from the handle over the preceding weeks, raising serious concerns about the systematic curtailment of public scrutiny of hyperscale data centre projects in and around Visakhapatnam.
“These are neither private matters nor issues of marginal concern. Since several months, online criticism of the hyperscale data centers coming up in the region has faced repeated restrictions. Time and again, the justification, invariably couched in the bland phrase “pursuant to legal requirements under India’s Information Technology Rules,’ reflects neither transparency nor accountability”, it said.
The Forum further stated that the Andhra Pradesh government appeared to be increasingly curtailing the channels through which critical questions reach the public.
“Rather than address legitimate concerns through open debate, it is by now abundantly clear that attempts are being made to restrict the very platforms that enable citizens to question decisions taken in the name of development,” it alleged.
The ‘Stop Vizag Data Centers’ campaign emerged as a vibrant and influential public platform for questioning the rapid proliferation of hyperscale data centres being constructed and proposed across North Andhra. It brought to public attention the enormous infrastructure costs and far-reaching environmental risks associated with these projects, and questioned the handing over of public resources, as well as the lack of transparency and meaningful public participation, the statement said.
The restrictions highlighted that critical information was withheld, leaving citizens unable to properly assess the consequences of decisions that could fundamentally reshape the region. HRF said that instead of responding democratically, the government was silencing the questions.
Also Read: HRF rejects Lokesh’s ‘deliberate misinformation’ claim over Vizag AI data centres
“From October 2025, the state government has aggressively promoted AI data centres as major engines of development and investment. But projects presented as being in the public interest must withstand the highest degree of public scrutiny, not evade it. Development cannot mean that citizens are expected to passively accept decisions already taken, while critical information is withheld and legitimate concerns are brushed aside. Nor can criticism of government policy or corporate projects be treated as a threat to be managed through restrictions on speech,” HRF said.
The Forum termed the restriction “particularly disturbing” because the campaign’s posts dealt with matters of immediate and vital public interest. Citizens have every right to scrutinise, question and challenge decisions made by government and private entities.
Saying that the latest instance was not an isolated one of content suppression, HRF said numerous posts from organisations and individual accounts critical of AI data centres have been restricted on Instagram in India.
The statement further said the ongoing censorship represented an ominous trend and went beyond a single Instagram account.
“The ‘Stop Vizag Data Centers’ campaign had, in barely two months, attracted 56 lakh views and 11,800 followers, reflecting substantial public engagement with questions concerning the social and ecological consequences of these hyperscalers. When a public-interest campaign that has reached such a large audience can suddenly be rendered inaccessible without a transparent explanation, the message to the wider public is unmistakable: scrutiny of powerful interests can carry consequences. This chilling effect could extend to journalists, researchers, environmental groups and ordinary citizens who may otherwise raise questions about projects affecting their lives”, it said.
Also Read: HRF demands withdrawal of green nod for Vizag data centre project
HRF demanded Meta immediately restore the ‘Stop Vizag Data Centres’ Instagram account in India. It must also clearly disclose the precise legal basis for the restriction, including the authority that sought it and the specific request made.
“Freedom of expression and the people’s right to participate in decisions affecting their environment, livelihoods and future are fundamental to any democratic society. Freedom of speech cannot mean merely the freedom to speak when governments or Big Tech are comfortable with what is being said. It is especially the freedom to question powerful interests, challenge official policy and oppose decisions taken in the name of development. The people of Visakhapatnam have a right to know what is being proposed in their region, what it will cost in land, water, power and environmental terms, what public resources are being committed and who will bear the costs. They have the right to debate, criticise and oppose such projects,” it said.
HRF added that the Andhra Pradesh government was actively pushing these AI data centre projects while claiming to welcome public debate.
“Yet, the repeated suppression of critical content, coupled with the government’s dismissive responses to public concerns, raises serious questions about its commitment to democratic accountability. HRF is of the view that the serious concerns raised by the rash of AI data centres require transparency, informed public debate and answers grounded in facts. Not evasive, contradictory and erratic responses from government functionaries, as is almost daily evident in the public domain. And it certainly does not justify curbing online speech, restricting free expression or attempts to bully,” the statement added.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
