Central Information Commission
B K S R Ayyangr vs Archaeological Survey Of India on 21 August, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. SridharAcharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/111930
B K S R Ayyangarv. PIO, Archaeological Survey of India
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 01.09.2017, CPIO reply - 22.12.2017, FAO - Nil, Second appeal filed on
14.02.2018, Hearing on 29.05.2018;
Proceedings on 29.05.2018: Appellant present, Public Authority represented by CPIO.
Ms.ArchanaAsthana Assistant Superintending Archaeologist. Directions and show cause issued.
Proceedings on 04.07.2018: Appellant present from NICWest Godawari, Public Authority
represented by CPIO. Mr Praveen Kumar, US (RTI) PMO, D K Shukla SO (RTI) PMO, Mr.Pappunjay
Kumar, APIO, Ministry of Culture and Mr. Harish Kumar, Director, Ministry of Culture at CIC:
Date of Decision - 20.08.2018: Directions to PMO: Penalty proceedings dropped.
ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant sought information regarding efforts made by the Government of India along with the related documents and correspondence for bringing into India (i) Koh-i-Noor diamond, (ii)Sultanganj Buddha, (iii) Nassak Diamond (iv) The Sword and ring of Tipu Sultan, (v) The golden throne of Maharaja Ranjit Singh (vi) Royal Jade wine cup of Shahjahan, (vii)Amaravathi railings and Buddhapade (viii) Saraswathi Marble idol- Vagdevi (ix) Mechanical Tiger of Tipuetc.,&jewels. The CPIO of PMO Mr. Ambuj Sharma transferred it to ASI on 7.9.2017 and CPIO of the Ministry of Culture Mr. Pappunjay Kumar also sent his First Appeal on 31.10.2017 to ASI only. Mr. N R Minj, CPIO of Ministry of Culture on 13.9.2017, transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, ASI. Mr. Arun Raj T, Superintending Archaeologist & Nodal Officer also transferred it on 13 November 2017 to ASI. Same officer has again transferred same application on 7th December 2017. Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Arya Director and FAA of Ministry of Culture also transferred the First Appeal to ASI.
2. The CPIO, Mrs. ArchanaAsthana, from ASI replied on 22.12.17 stating that under the Antiquities and Art Treasure Act, 1972, the ASI can take up the issue of retrieval of only those antiquities, which have been illegally exported out of the country in violation of the above Act which became operational in 1976. So CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/111930 Page 1 far 25 antiquities have been retrieved from various other countries during the years2014 to 2017.As no information was given and all his first appeals were also transferred to ASI without any purpose, the appellant filed second appeal before this Commission.
Contentions:
3. Appellant says that our finest jewels like Koh-i-Noor, precious treasures, artifacts were looted by the invaders especially the British, and he wants to know wonderful efforts of our government to bring them back to India, but did not receive any thing. He filed RTI request with the PMO, Ministry of External Affairs and Ministry of Culture, as he knew that it is difficult to expect such information from the ASI officers. Mrs.ArchanaAsthana CPIO (antiquity) on 22.12.2017 stated that she had received the RTI application from Nodal officer of ASI on 07.12.2017, the ASI could take up the issue of the retrieval of antiquities from the foreign country only in case of illegally exported article as per Antiquities and Art Treasures Act 1972 which came in to force in April 1976.
The objects/Antiquities referred by the applicant were taken away prior to Independence, therefore ASI has no authority to process the case of retrieval of "Koh-I-Noor diamond" and otherobjects under reference.The reply was given by CPIO of Antiquity Section within stipulated time under the provision of RTI Act. 2005.
4. When asked why RTI request was not transferred to PMO or Ministry of Culture, Mrs. ArchanaAstha said "these applications were filed at first with them only. I didn't understand why they sent to us".
5. The CPIO submitted that two writ petitionsnumber 185 of 2016 and 367 of 2016 were filed for retrieval of Koh-i-Noor Diamondbefore Supreme Court by All India Human Rights & Social Justice Front Versus the High Commissioner of UK (Britain) &ors. and Heritage Bengal. Supreme Court held on 21.04.2017 Governmentwasmindful of the sentiments that have been expressed by the Indian public and the Parliament from time to time, about the return of the Koh- i-Noor and other items of India. The Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India continues to explore ways and means for obtaining a satisfactory resolution to the issue with the U.K. Government".
CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/111930 Page 2 Historic Koh-I-Noor:
6. Some people believe that history of Koh-I-Noor diamond goes back more than 5000 years and its original name wasSyamantaka Mani during the age of Lord Krishna, later it changed hands in 1304 from Rajas of Malwa to Emperor of Delhi, AllaudinKhilji, came to Samarkhand in 1339, where it stayed for 300 years, before it was mentioned in Baburnama in 1526, said to be gifted by Babur to Sultan Ibrahim Lodi, which came back to Mughal Sultans, passed on to Persian General Nadir Shah in 1739, who believed to have given the name Koh- I-Noor (="mountain of light"), from whom it reached his General Ahmad Shah Durrani, who brought it back to India in 1813 to gift to Ranjit Singh in exchange of throne of Afghanistan. After conquest of East India Company forces in 1849, it went to their treasury in Lahore, finally shipped to Britain to adore the crown of Queen Victoria in 1850. Hence the people have high sentimental attachment with this Diamond. Similarly other artifacts also have checkered history.
7. NassakDiamondis believed to be a unique blue diamond that graced the crown of Lord Shiva at Triambakeswar in Nasik during 15th century and disappeared during third Anglo-Maratha war in 1817. Also called 'eye' of Shiva, Nassak is a large diamond weighed 43.38 carats (8676 gram) when it was found in the Golconda mines of Kollur. The British East India Company captured the diamond and sold it to British jewelers Rundell and Bridge in 1818. Rundell and Bridge recut the diamond in 1818, after which it made its way into the handle of the 1st Marquess of Westminster's dress sword. It was imported into United States in 1927 and was considered one of the first 24 great diamonds of the world by 1930, and it was sold in auction in New York in 1970. Trustees of temple recently requested President and Prime Minister Modi to bring it back from private museum in Lebanon. http://www.thehindu.com/society/history- and-culture/bring-back-indias-nassak-diamond-from- lebanon/article23346247.ece
8. Sultanganj Buddha: When Railway Engineer EB Harris was excavating for building a Railway Station at Sultanganj, contractor Mr. Samuel Thronton has discovered Buddha statute in 1862. He shifted it to Birmingham Museum in 1867. It is a splendid example of Gupta-Pala transitional sculpture, the largest substantially complete copper Buddha figure known from the time. The CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/111930 Page 3 archaeologists dated it back to between 500 and 700 AD. The Buddha's Sangathi (monastic robe) clings so closely to the body that it is almost invisible, but for a series of string-like folds, giving the figure a wet-looking appearance. http://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/content/articles/2006/05/10/sultanganj_bud dha_feature.shtml
9. Tipu's mechanical Tiger: Tipu Sultan is most popular ruler of Mysore who died defending independence from British soldiers. Tipu's Tiger is a mechanical tiger created for him. It is an 18th century automaton or mechanical toy. Mechanisms inside the tiger and man's bodies make one hand of the man move, emit a wailing sound from his mouth and grunts from the tiger. In addition a flap on the side of the tiger folds down to reveal the keyboard of a small pipe organ with 18 notes. The carved and painted wood casing represents a tiger savaging a near life-size European man. It is on display in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. https://www.ripleys.com/weird-news/tipus-tiger- ancient-mechanical-wonder/
10. Tipu'sSword:The last sword used by Tipu in his last battle, at Srirangapatnam, and the ring worn by him were taken by the British forces as war trophies. Until April 2004, the sword was kept on display at the British Museum London as gifts to the museum from Major General Augustus W.H. Meyrick and Nancy Dowager. When the legendary sword was auctioned in 2004, Rajyasabha MP and economic offender Vijay Mallya purchased it. This is considered to be one of the world's rare artifact. The curved steel blade made of fine steel has inscribed with verses from the Holy Quran. It has wooden sheath covered with maroon velvet.
11. Tipu's Ram ring is 'an Indian antique gold ring' with 'Rama' in raised Devenagri script surrounded by chased floral buds to the octagonal base and ornate shoulders and hoop, the inside of which is engraved Major General Lord FitzRoy Somerset KCB, late 18th century. It has been weighed to be of 41.2 gms.A catalogue dated 1908 of the Royal United Service Museum, Whitehall described as '3064. Ring was taken from Tipu's finger by Colonel Honorable A. Wellesley (Duke of Wellington) in battle field of Seringapatam, 1799, and given by him to his niece, Lady FitzRoy Somerset.' CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/111930 Page 4
12. Marble Vagdevi: The most beautiful marble statue of Vagdevi- Goddess Saraswati was taken from BhojSala of Madhra Pradesh. Raja Bhoj was king in 1034 reputed for have nine gems of literary personalities in his royal court. It is said Lord Curzon looted it and shifted it to England.
13. Singhasan of Maharaja Ranjit Singh made of wood and resin core with sheets of repousse, chased and engraved gold by goldsmith Hafez Muhammad Multani. It was made between 1820 and 1830, reflecting splendour of Ranjit Singh. When British annexed Punjab after second Anglo-Sikh war in 1849, the throne was taken over as one of the state property, displayed with other looted treasures at the Great Exhibition in 1851. It is kept in the V&A Museum with inventory number 2518(IS).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharaja_Ranjit_Singh%27s_throne#/media/File:
Ranjit_Singh%27s_golden_throne.jpg
14. Wine cup of Shah Jahan is of white nephrite Jade, inscribed with his title, "Second Lord of the Conjunction" as per Persian titulature convention. It specially alludes to Timur, the central Asian ruler from whom the Mughals descended. It belongs to year 1657 CE. Colonel Charles Seton Guthrie of 19th Century acquired most probably after the Indian Rebellion of 1857. It changed several hands and finally acquired by the Victoria and Albert Museum in 1962. http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O73769/wine-cup-of-shah-jahan-wine-cup- unknown/
15. Thus 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 such as Marble Vagdevi of Bhoj Raj, Buddha's statue from Sultanganj, Nassak Diamond called 'eye' of Shiva, and objects with high historic value like Koh-I-Noor, Tipu's sword, ring and mechanical tiger etc. 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.
Conflicting Reports CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/111930 Page 5
16. A news magazine reported on April 9, 2016 that "24 hours after it told the Supreme Court that the Kohinoor diamond cannot be brought back to India from UK as it was "gifted" to the British queen, the government has done a U-turn over the issue. Quoting government sources who said that they will do whatever they can to bring the Kohinoor back to the country, a senior government functionary said that the government has resolved to make all possible efforts to bring back the legendary gem in an amicable manner. The official also said that the government wishes to put on record that certain news items appearing in the media regarding the Kohinoor diamond are not based on facts. This report referred to Solicitor General's representation to the Supreme Court saying: 'The status report on which the preliminary submission was made by the Solicitor General have references to the stand taken by governments earlier that the Kohinoor was a gift and cannot be categorized as an object stolen. The material further has references to the views of India's first Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru dating back to 1956. Pandit Nehru went on record saying that there is no ground to claim the treasured gem back. He also added that efforts to get the Kohinoor back would lead to difficulties' ". Pandit Nehru also said, "To exploit our good relations with some country to obtain free gifts does not seem to be desirable. On the other hand, it does seem to be desirable that foreign museums should have Indian objects of art." (India Today) Historic Pieces brought byModi Government
17. This news report has further said: It may be added that ever since he has taken over as PM, NarendraModi's efforts led to three significant pieces of India's history coming back home. In October 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel returned a 10th century Indian statue of Goddess Durga that was stolen in 1990 and found in 2012 at a museum in Germany. In April 2015, then Canadian PM Stephen Harper returned a sculpture known as the 'Parrot Lady', which dates back to almost 900 years. Then Australian PM Tony Abbott, on his India visit in 2014, had returned antique statues of Hindu deities that were in Australian art galleries. None of these gestures affected India's relations with either Canada, Germany or Australia. NarendraModi, who as the chief minister of Gujarat then, got back the ashes of Shyamji Krishna Varma almost 70 CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/111930 Page 6 years after his death in 2003. (https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/will-do- everything-to-get-it-back-govts-u-turn-on-kohinoor-318853-2016-04-19)
18. A news report on April 10, 2016 quoted a reply of Ministry of Culture and Ministry of External Affairs to RTI filed by PTI: "Since the object referred by you [Kohinoor] has been taken out of the country prior to the Independence, the Archaeological Survey of India is not in a position to process the matter". The application was filed with the External Affairs Ministry seeking details of steps being taken for return of Kohinoor along with a copy of a letter written to and response received from the United Kingdom in this regard. "It may be noted that Ministry of Culture deals with return of cultural artefacts. Therefore the RTI application has been forwarded to Ministry of Culture," the MEA said. To a question seeking details of items which are in U.K.'s custody and India wants to claim them back, the Culture Ministry said: "There is no list available with the Archaeological Survey of India about the items in Britain's custody." (http://www.thehindu.com/news/india-may-not-get-back-kohinoor-diamond- centre/article8457811.ece)
19. A news-magazine reported that inJuly 2016, PM NarendraModi had called a high-level meeting instructing his government to ensure the return of the medieval artefact, now set in a crown which is on display in the Tower of London. The government, however, reiterated its resolve to "make all possible efforts" to bring back the Koh-I-Noor diamond from the UK in an amicable manner. (https://www.indiatoday.in /india/story/kohinoor-diamond- supreme-court-diplomatic-affairs-london-united-kingdom-972708-2017-04-21) In another report, that magazine wrote "the Kohinoor diamond, kept under tight security at the Tower of London, is claimed by India, Afghanistan, Pakistan and also Iran".
The PILs in Supreme Court
20. Two public interest litigations (PIL) were filed two NGOs each by the All India Human Rights and Social Justice Front WP No. 185/2016, and Heritage Bengal (represented by MP SukhenduShekhar Roy of Trinamul Congress WP No 367/2016 filed on 15.5.2016), which were tagged together, as they were seeking a writ of mandamus to the Union of India and also to 'High Commissioner of United Kingdom' for returning the world famous Koh-i-
CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/111930 Page 7 Noordiamond etc. The petitionersmade Union of India through Ministry of External Affairs and Ministry of Culture; High Commissioner of Islamic Republic of Pakistan in India and High Commissioner of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh parties. Theyalso sought return of the Ring and Talwar of Tipu Sultan and other treasures of Tipu Sultan, Bahadur Shah Zafar, Rani of Jhansi, Nawab Mir Ahmad Ali Banda and other rulers of India, antiquities of art, craft and cultural pieces of historical importance and manuscript and books of historical importance which are contained in the basement of Victoria and Albert Museum. The Petitioners further sought the return of manuscript and books of historical importance kept in India Office Library.
21. Heritage Bengal in its PIL sought declaration of the Koh-I-Noor diamond as India's cultural property and a direction to the government to initiate a diplomatic move at the highest level with the UK for repatriation of the famed gem. It disputed the claim of the centrewith a supporting evidence of a letter in which the then ruler of Punjab,DuleepSinghsaid his properties were 'confiscated' by the British. On April 18, 2016 the apex court had advised the Centre to take a "careful stand" on the Kohinoor diamond, instead of going by the Culture Ministry's view that India had no right to claim it from the UK. The Culture Ministry had initially taken a stand that the diamond had been gifted to the British government by Maharaja Ranjit Singh's heirs and as such India had lost its rights over it. It, however, retracted the statement following the Supreme Court's remarks.(http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/sc-agrees- to-hear-another-pil-on-kohinoor-diamond/259237.html)
22. The apex court in its order dated 21st April 2017 referred to an counter affidavit filed by the Government of India wherein inter alia it has stated as under:
10. It may be noted that the relevant instrument is the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, which deals with illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property. UK became a signatory since 1977. It would be seen that Article 15 of the Convention allows State Parties to seek the restitution of a removed cultural property by entering into a special agreement with the concerned State Party with respect to cultural property removed or transferred before its entry into force of the Convention, Article 15 would be relevant. It is reiterated that India's credentials regarding ownership of the Koh-I-Noor based on historical evidence cannot be doubted.
CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/111930 Page 8
11. Keeping in view of the above, the answering respondents state that the Koh-
I-Noor, as also other Indian artefacts', manuscripts and items of artistic and historical value that are precisely in the UK, are a significant expression of India's historical heritage. Koh-I-Noor is an Indian artefact that was located for most of its history within the political and geographical boundaries of India. The answering respondents are mindful of the sentiments that have been expressed by the Indian public and that the Parliament from time to time, about the return of the Koh-I-Noor and other items of India. The Government of India continues to explore ways and means for obtaining a satisfactory resolution to the issue with the UK Government.
23. The Supreme Court disposed of two writ petitions saying: "In view of the stand adopted by the Union of India, we are satisfied, that nothing further survives in this petition." The web-media reported: The Centre told the Supreme Court that Koh-i-noor was neither "forcibly taken", nor "stolen" by British rulers but given to the East India Company by the rulers of Punjab.(https://www.firstpost.com/india/supreme-court-rejects-kohinoor- pil- states-cant-pass-order-on-reclaiming-diamond-from-britain-3396470. html) The Confusion
24. With all kinds of such reports and multiple statements, the citizens are confused as to what exactly is the stand of the Union Government on securing back priceless cultural heritage of India. It is also not known whom should they approachfor information under RTI, why the Ministry of External Affairs asked the requester to approach the Ministry of Culture, who in turn transferred it to ASI, knowing that as per 1972 Act, the ASI has no role to play regarding the artefacts taken away from India prior to 1972. Earlier RTI request also ended up at ASI without any 'information'.
25. Appellant questioned why his RTI application was transferred to department of ASI when ASI has no legal authority to get these valuable artifacts back. As contended by appellant, it is unbelievable thatCPIO of PMO Mr. Ambuj Sharma, the CPIO of the Ministry of Culture Mr. Pappunjay Kumar and Superintending Archaeologist & Nodal Officer Mr.Arun Raj T, were not aware of theAct of 1972 and of lack of power in ASI to retrieve the Koh-I-Noor etc.
26. Mr Arun Raj T, Nodal Officer of Archaeological Survey of India stated that he received RTI application on 2.11.2017 on only on 13.11.2017 he transferred CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/111930 Page 9 it to ASI.It has to be transferred within five days from receipt as per Section 6(3) of RTI Act, which says:
Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,-- which is held by another public authority; or the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer:
Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.
27. It is surprising that CPIOs of PMO and Ministry of Culture did not apply their mind, ignored the lack of authority in ASI and in a routine manner transferred RTI application without even verifying whether they have any information in their records. When their Ministry assured the Supreme Court that they would continue efforts, it was for them to inform measures or progress if any. Knowing that the ASI had no legal power to recover pre-Independence artifacts from British how could PMO and Ministry of Culture conclude that RTI application"is more closely connected with functions of ASI?"
28. The efforts, if any, will involve external affairs or international transactions or diplomacy at higher level of the Prime Minister or Minister for External Affairs or High Commissioners of India and other concerned nations to get back historic possessions that were taken out of India. One can understand Ministry of Culture transferring it to MEA. As per International Law, i.e, Treaty cited above, India has every right to secure these artifacts from British, which acceded to that treaty. Especially when Prime Minister could bring back so many artifacts from foreign countries, hopeful peoplelegitimately expect them back. The official statements assuring their continued efforts and that they were committed bring them back besides agitation in Parliament and reports of PM's meetings increased expectations. When Parliament cannot be denied this information the citizens too cannot be denied as per proviso under Section 8(1) of RTI Act. The PMO and Ministry of Culture have every duty to inform the appellant and transferring RTI requests to ASI would amount to breach of that duty.
29. The PILs and different reports give rise to various questions like: Whether Union of India believe that Koh-I-Noor was gifted to British Queen? Whether PM agree with Pandit Nehru's stand that India had no ground to claim it back and CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/111930 Page 10 such a claim would lead to difficulties? After England became signatory in 1977, why not India utilize its right under Article 15 of UNESCO convention 1970? As per the commitment given to Supreme Court, what efforts were continued by Government of India or its Ministry of External Affairs? Is there any positive outcome of meetings reportedly held by PM in this regard? As the ASI cannot furnish any answers to these questions, the people would look to the PM, for action and information.
30. The Commission's order dated 01.06.2018:
30. The information sought in this case is about securing India's cultural heritage and hence surely in larger public interest and it was not hit by any of exceptions under Section 8 or 9 of RTI Act.
31. For the above reasons, the Commission directs the CPIO of PMO, the CPIO of Ministry of Culture and CPIO of Ministry for External Affairs to inform the appellant what efforts were initiated/continued or contemplated and their stand on the points mentioned in RTI application.
32. The Commission directs the CPIO of PMO Mr. Ambuj Sharma to explain why RTI request of the applicant was transferred to ASI, when the Act of 1972 clearly explain that subject matter of the request was not under their control. The Commission directs CPIO of the Ministry of Culture Mr. Pappunjay Kumar, Mr. N R Minjtoshow causewhy maximum penalty should not be imposed against each of them for not furnishing information sought, besides wrongfully transferring RTI application to the ASI, and directs also Mr.Arun Raj T, Superintending Archaeologist & Nodal Officer to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for taking ten days to transfer the RTI application to ASI
33. Instead of stipulated 5 days, without any purpose,within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. The case is posted to 30thJune 2018 at 2.30 pm for hearing on show cause notices and compliance.
Compliance of the order:
31. Dr. Arun Raj, T, Superintending Archaeologist & Nodal Officer (RTI), ASI,vide his letter dated 29.06.2018, submitted to the Commission as under:-:
(i) That Applicant Mr. BKSR Ayyangar, filed an RTI application on 01.09.17 for seeking information about efforts made by the Government of India to retrieval of artifacts. The para 26 of CIC notice mentions that the RTI application received on 02.11.2017 and I took 10 days to transfer the RTI application instead of stipulated 05 days.
(ii) While regretting myself for the delay in disposing the RTI matter, I have the honor to state that the delay is not purposeful and delay was due to shifting of Archaeological Survey of India, Head Quarter from Janpath to 24, Tilak Marg, N. Delhi. After the 157 years of its inception this largest organization of its kind (dedicated for preserving the monuments/sites of national importance) CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/111930 Page 11 recently constructed its head office at 24, Tilak Marg, N. Delhi and shifted the huge volume of records in a phased manner. The shifting of all section including RTI Cell had started in the first week of November 2017 and ended in the last week of December 2017. Since the above application also received during the above mentioned shifting period all the records/files, computer and other equipment of RTI cell were not properly arranged due to shifting.
Therefore the RTI application of Mr. BKSR Ayyangar could not dispose within the stipulated time.
In view of the facts and circumstances explained above, it is humbly requested to accept the submission and the proposed proceedings against the CPIO may kindly be dropped and the case be disposed off.
32. Mr.Parveen Kumar, Under Secretary and CPIO, PMO vide letter dated 03.07.2018, submitted to the Commission as under:-
In response to the interim order dated 01.06.2018 in CIC's File no. CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/111930, the response of this office in respect of Para 31 and Para 32 of the decision is as under:-
Sr. Directions of the CIC Response of PMO No. 1. "32. The commission It is clarified that the RTI application
directsthe CPIO of PMO Mr. hadbeen transferred by the CPIO, PMO AmbujSharma to explain why to theMinistry of Culture and not to the RTIrequest of the applicant ASI as hasbeen observed in the wastransferred to ASI, when decision given by theCIC. In this theAct of 1972 clearly explain regard, a copy of this office'sOM No. that subject matter of RTI/11094/2017-PMR therequest was not under dated07.09.2017 is enclosed.As per theircontrol. ......" Government of India (Allocation ofBusiness) Rules, the functions relating to"Acquisition of Indian and Foreign ArtObjects" and "Museum of Gems andJewelry" are allocated to the Ministry ofCulture.In view of this and keeping in view theprovisions contained in section 6(3)(ii) of theRTI Act, the application had been rightlytransferred by the CPIO, PMO to CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/111930 Page 12 theMinistry of Culture
2. "31. ....the commission directs As stated above, the subject matter the CPIO of PM0,...... .....to relates toMinistry of Culture, to whom inform the appellant what the RTIapplication already stands efforts were transferred.
initiated/continued or contemplated and their stand on the points mentioned in RTI applications."
33. Mr. Harish Kumar, Director, and Mr.Pappunjay Kumar,APIO, Ministry of culture, submitted to the Commission that no information available with them so they have written letter to the Ministry of External Affairs.
34. The Section Officer, ASI, submitted that their head office is the custodian of the information. In view of this the Commission directs the respondent authority to provide the complete information available with them, in the form of certified copy, within 15 daysfrom the date of receipt of this order.
35. Upon perusal of the records and submissions made by the parties, the Commission finds explanation of Mr.Parveen Kumar, Under Secretary and CPIO, PMO regarding transfer, and by Dr. Arun Raj, T, Superintending Archaeologist & Nodal Officer (RTI), ASI with regard to delay in giving response blaming the shifting of the office, do not warrant any penalty, though their justification was not totally satisfactory.
36. Appellant brought out an important matter of general public interest, which the Ministry of Culture, or ASI could not answer on their own. The CPIO of PMO explained that RTI request was not transferred to ASI, but it was sent to Ministry of Culture.
37. The efforts to secure back the artifacts of ancient times is a high level exercise depending upon India's relations with foreign countries, good will established by the leadership of the Government of India and strategic steps of the officers of external affairs. For instance, a 12th-century bronze sculpture of Buddha stolen from Archeological Museum in Nalanda, India nearly 60 years CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/111930 Page 13 ago, in 1961,is to be returned to the country after it was discovered at a trade fair in the UK.The sculpture will reportedly be handed to the Indian high commissioner to the UK. It was reported that the statue was identified at a trade fair in March by members of theAssociation for Research into Crime against Art (ARCA), an organization working to preserve cultural heritage and the India Pride Project, which aims to recover stolen artifacts.The India Pride Project initiatives included return of Bronze Natraja (10th Century AD) stolen in 2005 was located in Australia and gifted to Indian Prime Minister in September 2014 by Australian PM, Bronze Parvathi (10th Century AD) stolen in 2005 and located in Singapore, Bronze Somaskhanda (10th Century AD) stolen in 1956 and located in America and Bronze Ganesha (10th Century AD) stolen in 2005 and located in America.
38. DrKiritMankodi is an independent archaeologist who campaigns for return of stolen Indianantiques. He maintains a record of these artefacts at www.plunderedpast.in. He wrote [TNN |Apr 29, 2014, 03.49PM IST]:
The US immigration and customs department (ICE/DHS) has seized $100- million worth antiquities from Subhash Kapoor who is undergoing trial in Tamil Nadu for stealing idols from a temple in Ariyalur. ICE is keen to return the items but has been unable to find a matching interest on the part of Indian authorities.
For instance, among the antique pieces, is a Chola-era stone sculpture of Buddha, likely stolen from Tamil Nadu. Another is a BharhutYakshi - worth $15 million in the art market and the most expensive item so far found in the Kapoor catalogue -- stolen from a shrine in Madhya Pradesh.
The Mahakoka (the great bird-voiced goddess) sandstone sculpture was recovered from a 2,200 year-old Buddhist stupa excavated by Alexander Cunningham, pioneer of archaeology in India, at Bharhut near Satna in Madhya Pradesh in 1873. The family who inherited this sculpture had wisely registered it under the relevant act in 1977, when they also submitted its photographs to the archaeological authorities.In July 2004, the Great Bird Goddess was stolen from the household shrine. The theft was reported to the police, the ASI was also informed. The owners declared a reward of Rs 50,000 for the recovery of what was for them their family deity. With the lodging of the FIR, the matter seems to have CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/111930 Page 14 rested in the files, for both the police and the ASI. Personal exploration by this writer around Pataora, only a few kilometers from Bharhut, helpedlocate the family whose deity she was. The photographs submitted by the owner at the time ofregistration matched those sent by DHS, proving that what the DHS officials had intercepted wasindeed the sculpture that had been stolen.
The ASI and culture ministry have been made aware of all this. Since the time the owner of thesculpture came to know about the sculpture's recovery in the US, he has made many visits to theministry and ASI's offices.
In the case of the chola-era Buddha, the sculpture has been lying at the DHS warehouse. Theofficials want an explanation of how the Buddha got to Kapoor. The provenance of the Buddha asfurnished by Kapoor is suspicious and similar to the provenance certificates he fabricated for otherantiquities.
The state ASI told me that the Buddha is not from any of the sites under its protection. I have notreceived a response from the local archaeology department for my requests for cooperation.
39. The PMO and Ministry of Culture should take note of the concerns expressed by this enthusiastic independent archeologist. This shows that India need to show matching interest in recovering these artifacts of immeasurable value. Ministry of Culture and ASI has a duty to respond to queries of such organizations. Similarly if any of such efforts are gaining results that could be possibly within the reach of PMO. If they have done something to regain those symbols of our glorious past either through diplomatic means or ARCA, the PMO would be better equipped to inform the appellant rather than others.
40. More than three thousand five hundred sites and monuments which are notified and under the ASI protection, other ancient monuments which are not under any official protection form part of India's and indeed the World's heritage. The Constitution of India enjoins upon all Indian nationals to protect and preserve this heritage. Laws prohibit removal and smuggling of these antiquities, whether protected or not. Such thefts from officially notified sites, the offence is greater. There is a steady stream of thefts and smuggling of CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/111930 Page 15 antiques after destruction and mutilation. If in the past foreign invaders destroyed, now in these days, criminals are mutilating artifacts and removing them for smuggling. They cut off the head of a sculpture to steal, smuggle and sell it. Tragedy is that there is no centralizeddocumentation exists in India about thefts or smuggling of art objects. Actionable information is not made available by the ASI. The monument from where artifacts are stolen, description of stolen antique, measurements and photographs and details of the FIR should be made public through all possible media. The complaints and FIRs should also contain photographic evidence of stolen objects, which should have duly publicized so that smuggling becomes difficult. There should be such public documentation of thefts which will help in preventing stolen things from crossing borders. Because of the alerts issued www.plunderedpast.in two stolen sculptures could be recovered. The Commission recommends that ASI should take similar efforts to publish alerts, photos and FIRs about thefts, besides developing centralized public documentation of thefts with full details and photographs.
41.The information requested under RTI demand an initiative from the PMO to secure the details from the concerned, possibly includingMinistry of External Affairs or of Culture to take needful measures. If they have initiated any such measures, they should have given the details.Appellant and people will be disappointed if nothing was done, at least that should have been stated. If some measures were taken but not fruitful, or if they are still in the process, that information could be satisfactory. Unfortunately there was no such exercise from any office including PMO. How can ASI or officers above them tell anything to appellant about Kohinoor and other high valuable artifacts of our ancient times?
42. Instead of routinely transferring it to the Ministry of Culture, the PMO should have applied their mind, taken guidance from their higher officers or the concerned Minister, or found out from Ministry of External Affairs to provide information sought. PMO should not have been transferredRTI application at all. Instead the PMO should have chosen to answerto avoid assumption by the people or appellant that there were no efforts at all.
43. The Commission,like appellant, legitimately expects that certain RTI requests which could be answered by the PMO will not be unnecessarily transferred to other Ministries and that CPIO will collect the information sought CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/111930 Page 16 and inform the appellant and nation about efforts and their effects, to reclaim the ancient artifacts within one month, if possible, if not, as soon as possible. Disposed of.
Sd/-
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/111930 Page 17