An investigation by The Reporters’ Collective reveals how forest land in Gujarat earmarked for protection under India’s Green Credit Programme was quietly removed and opened up for deforestation after being linked to demands from the Adani Group. Records show that the Gujarat government asked the Union government to withdraw multiple forest parcels from the conservation scheme, including four parcels explicitly noted as being “demanded” for Adani projects.

Internal correspondence shows that officials overseeing the Green Credit Programme raised serious concerns, warning that removing forest land meant to be restored and protected in order to clear it for industrial use was contradictory to the programme’s stated purpose. Despite this, and without clear procedural justification, the Union government ultimately approved the removal of these forest parcels from the conservation programme.

When questioned, the Gujarat government publicly denied requesting forest land removals to benefit Adani, even though official records obtained through Right to Information requests directly contradict those claims. The Adani Group, when approached, declined to comment meaningfully, stating it could not respond without specific project details, despite being provided with coordinates and documentation from government records.

This case highlights how green initiatives can be undermined by corporate influence and political pressure, turning conservation programmes into tools for greenwashing rather than genuine environmental protection. As India continues to clear vast areas of forest for infrastructure and industrial expansion, the episode raises urgent questions about transparency, accountability, and whose interests are truly being served under the banner of climate action.

South Africa is facing growing public backlash after Gautam Adani’s conglomerate was shortlisted as a bidder for a 26 billion dollar overhaul of the country’s electricity transmission grid. The project is central to addressing South Africa’s long running power crisis, but news of Adani’s involvement has sparked intense debate, mistrust, and public scrutiny across social media and civil society.

While the South African government has framed the shortlisting of seven international consortia as a technical step toward modernising the grid, many South Africans are questioning why foreign corporations are being considered to control critical national infrastructure. Online reactions reveal deep frustration with privatisation, corruption scandals in the energy sector, and fears that profit driven corporations could worsen inequality rather than deliver reliable power.

Adani’s supporters point to his company’s electricity operations abroad, citing efficiency and lower costs, and argue that South Africa needs urgent solutions after years of rolling blackouts. Others remain deeply sceptical, warning that past experiences with multinational infrastructure projects have prioritised profits over public accountability, workers’ rights, and long term national control.

As bidding moves forward, the controversy highlights broader concerns about who benefits from massive infrastructure investments during the global energy transition. With Adani facing mounting scrutiny internationally over governance, transparency, and community impacts, South Africans are demanding accountability and public oversight, not just promises that the lights will finally stay on.