Live Law: New Delhi: Wednesday,
August 29, 2018.
The Central Information
Commission (CIC) recently directed the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the
Ministry of Culture to intimate an RTI applicant about the efforts taken by it
to reclaim ancient artifacts like the Koh-i-Noor diamond and Tipu Sultan’s sword,
preferably within a month.
Information
Commissioner Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu also suggested that the Archaeological
Survey of India (ASI) should start publishing alerts, photographs and FIRs
about thefts of antiques from historical sites to make their smuggling
difficult. To this end, he directed that a centralised public documentation
system containing the details and photographs of stolen antiques be set up by
the ASI.
The CIC was hearing an
Appeal filed by one BKSR Ayyangar, who had sought information regarding the
efforts made by the Government of India for bringing back to India (i)
Koh-i-Noor diamond, (ii) Sultanganj Buddha, (iii) Nassak Diamond, (iv) Tipu Sultan’s
sword and ring, (v) Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s golden throne, (vi) Shah Jahan’s
royal jade wine cup, (vii) Amaravathi railings and Buddhapade, (viii)
Saraswathi marble idol vagdevi, (ix) Mechanical tiger of Tipu.
In response, the PIO,
ASI merely answered that under the Antiquities and Art Treasure Act, 1972, the
ASI can take up the issue of retrieval of only those antiquities which had been
illegally exported out of the country, in violation of the Act.
The CIC now highlighted
the history attached to these artifacts and opined, “…these precious artifacts
reflect India’s glorious culture and valiant history cannot be in the hands of
looters, offenders or lying in foreign government and private museums. Deep
sentiments are associated with these heritage objects as some of them are
religiously considered sacred… They legitimately belonged to India and people
of past, present and future generations are interested in re-possessing them. The
Government cannot ignore these sentiments which are reflected by
representations, public interest litigations and RTI requests.”
It also took objection
to the transfer of the RTI applications by the PMO and the Ministry of Culture
to the ASI, highlighting the fact that ASI has no legal authority to get such
artifacts back. It further opined that it was the duty of the PMO and the
Ministry of Culture to respond to the appellant and that transferring such
requests to the ASI amounts to a breach of such duty.
Slamming the PMO and
the Ministry of Culture, and directing it to respond to the RTI application as
soon as possible, it then observed, “Instead of routinely transferring it to
the Ministry of Culture, the PMO should have applied its mind, taken guidance
from higher officers or the concerned minister, or found out from Ministry of
External Affairs to provide information sought. The PMO should not have
transferred the RTI application at all. Instead, the PMO should have chosen to
answer to avoid assumptions by the people or appellant that there were no
efforts at all.”
(Copy of Order)