In a press release, they demanded that the MoU be made public without further delay.
Published Dec 06, 2025 | 1:57 PM ⚊ Updated Dec 06, 2025 | 1:57 PM
Data centres are highly automated and once operational, they create only a few hundred long-term positions, most of which are highly specialised technical roles filled by external recruits. (AI-generated image)
Synopsis: Noting that citizens possess the right to know the precise nature of the commitments, concessions and safeguards contained in this MOU, especially given its potential impact on water, energy use, land and data governance in the State, the press release added, “When agreements of such magnitude, the Google Data Center is said to involve an investment of 15 billion dollars, are signed in secrecy, it erodes public trust and undermines democratic oversight.”
The Human Rights Forum (HRF) and the United Forum for RTI Campaign (UFRTI) expressed deep concern over the Andhra Pradesh government’s refusal to disclose the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed with Google for the proposed Data Center and allied investments in Visakhapatnam and Anakapalli districts.
In a press release, they demanded that the MoU be made public without further delay.
They further noted that while the state government has been projecting the agreement as a landmark investment and ‘game-changer’ with far reaching economic benefits and that it will position the State as a digital infrastructure hub, the government has refused to make the contents of the MOU available in the public domain.
“Its continued opacity in the matter clearly violates the basic principles of the Right to Information Act, 2005.”
Noting that citizens possess the right to know the precise nature of the commitments, concessions and safeguards contained in this MOU, especially given its potential impact on water, energy use, land and data governance in the State, the press release added, “When agreements of such magnitude, the Google Data Center is said to involve an investment of 15 billion dollars, are signed in secrecy, it erodes public trust and undermines democratic oversight.”
“Under Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the government is legally obligated to proactively disclose information relating to all public agreements, concessions, land allotment and long-term commitments without requiring citizens to file RTI requests. These documents should have been placed in the public domain voluntarily.”
The rights group further questioned, how despite the statuary obligation, a formal RTI application seeking access to the MoU was rejected recently by Andhra Pradesh government citing confidentiality. “This refusal not only violates the letter and spirit of the RTI Act but also raises serious concerns about the government’s commitment to transparency in matters related to critical public resources.”
HRF and UFRTI further reiterated that allocations of this scale involving significant commitment of public resources including power, water, land and subsidies and incentives of various kinds, must be subject to public scrutiny. “It is widely acknowledged that such large data centers will exert significant pressure on the State’s already stressed power and water infrastructure.”
They questioned, “Without access to the MOU, how are civil society organisations, concerned citizens and researchers to assess whether adequate environmental safeguards, social impact assessments, data localisation safeguards, privacy protections, requisite oversight mechanisms and data privacy frameworks have been built into the agreement?”
The rights group urged that all documents pertaining to the Google Data Center MoU – including the MoU itself, its annexures, details of land and infrastructure commitments, fiscal concessions and related correspondence – be made available online, in full and without delay. “Citizens must not be compelled to apply, appeal or litigate for information that the law explicitly identifies for suo motu disclosure.”
Criticising the government, the rights group claimed, “The government’s unwillingness to disclose information reflects a broader and shameful weakening of the State’s institutional mechanisms of openness and accountability. Five out of the eight positions in the Andhra Pradesh State Information Commission, including that of the Chief Information Commissioner, remain vacant.”
“As a result, the Commission is unable to function with its full mandate, hear appeals, enforce orders or ensure compliance under the RTI Act. A similar impasse in the past necessitated the intervention of the Supreme Court to restore appointments and the Commission’s functioning. The recurrence of such vacancies now raises grave concerns about the State’s commitment to sustaining an effective and independent transparency regime.”
The rights group demanded that the Chief Information Commissioner be appointed and all vacancies in the Information Commission be filled without further delay. “The State government must demonstrate its commitment to transparent governance through action, not rhetoric.”
“A State that claims to drive technological innovation and progress cannot resort to secrecy, it must embody transparency. Decisions taken in the name of the public must be open to public scrutiny. The Government of Andhra Pradesh must immediately upload all documents relating to the MoU with Google Data on an official public platform,” they reiterated.
