Every Indian citizen has the right to seek information from government bodies under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. This fundamental right empowers individuals to hold public authorities accountable and access crucial details about governance. But what happens when the information sought pertains to matters of national heritage and historical significance? Can RTI be used to trace the whereabouts of priceless artefacts or understand government actions regarding their retrieval? This case highlights how the RTI Act can be a powerful tool even for complex queries involving national treasures, and underscores the importance of correct information dissemination authorities.
Background: What Information Was Sought
An RTI applicant, driven about India’s historical artefacts, filed an application with the Ministry of Culture. The applicant’s primary goal was to ascertain the current location of iconic national treasures: the Kohinoor Diamond, the Tukht-i-Taus (Peacock Throne), and the Mayur Sinhasan (Peacock Throne). Beyond just location, the applicant also sought specific documentary evidence, such as certified copies of any gift deeds related to these items, and information on whether they had been subjected to theft. Furthermore, the applicant was keen to know what steps the Government of India had taken to secure the return of these invaluable artefacts. The initial response from the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the National Museum was that the Kohinoor diamond was not part of their collection, a response that proved to be just the beginning of a complex information-gathering process.
How the Public Authority Responded
The journey of this RTI application revealed significant procedural and informational shortcomings. Initially, the PIO of the National Museum provided a reply stating the absence of the Kohinoor diamond in their collection. However, the applicant later received a letter from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) which indicated that the Kohinoor diamond was indeed part of the British Royal Family’s crown jewels. The ASI also stated that the Tukht-i-Taus and Mayur Sinhasan were not traceable. Further communication from the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) revealed that the Government of India had made requests for the return of the Kohinoor diamond in 1947, 1953, and 1983. However, the nature and formality of these requests remained unclear, as the UK’s Commonwealth Office had not provided specific details. A critical issue that emerged was the incorrect transfer of the RTI application Ministry of Culture. Instead of directing the application to the PIOs of departments holding the relevant information, such as the ASI and MEA, it was incorrectly routed, leading to delays and fragmented, and at times, seemingly contradictory information.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the applicant presented the information received, highlighting the discrepancies and the perceived incorrectness of the initial response from the National Museum. The applicant also detailed the subsequent communications from the ASI and MEA, which painted a more complete, albeit still incomplete, picture. The core of the dispute, however, shifted to the manner in which the Ministry of Culture handled the RTI application. The CIC noted that the PIO of the Ministry of Culture had a pattern of routinely transferring RTI applications to other departments within the Ministry without properly verifying if those departments actually held the requested information. This practice was identified as a primary cause for the delays and the furnishing of inaccurate or incomplete replies, there the spirit of the RTI Act.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission, after examining the case, acknowledged that the relevant information available in the records had been provided to the appellant. However, the Commission strongly criticized the procedural lapses. The CIC observed that the Secretary of the Ministry of Culture needed to address the systemic issue of RTI application mis-transfers. The Commission directed the Secretary to take appropriate steps to establish a robust and credible system for the efficient disposal of RTI applications. Crucially, the CIC mandated that suitable training be imparted to the officials of the Ministry of Culture to enhance their understanding and handling of RTI matters. This directive is significant because it moves beyond a specific case and aims to improve the overall functioning of RTI dissemination within a government department. Furthermore, the Commission issued a stern warning to the Ministry of Culture officials, particularly those responsible for the incorrect transfer of the application, emphasizing the need for due diligence. The CIC made it clear that failure to scrupulously observe the provisions of the RTI Act could lead to penal proceedings under Section 20 of the Act in the future. This serves as a strong deterrent against negligence and encourages a more responsible approach to handling citizens’ right to information.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Persistence is Key: Even when faced with initial incorrect or incomplete responses, don’t give up. Follow up, seek clarification, and if necessary, escalate your application through the appellate process. The journey of this applicant, receiving information from multiple sources, demonstrates that persistence can yield results.
- Lesson 2: Understand the Right Authority: When filing an RTI, try to identify the specific department or authority that is most likely to hold the information you seek. While PIOs are meant to transfer applications correctly, a well-directed application saves time and reduces the chances of errors.
- Lesson 3: Focus on Systemic Issues: If you encounter systemic problems like delays, incorrect transfers, or a lack of training among officials, highlight these in your appeal. The CIC’s intervention in this case, leading to a directive for training, shows that the Commission takes such issues seriously and can mandate corrective actions.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Information Needed: Clearly define what information you are seeking. Be specific about the subject matter, the timeframe, and the format of the information.
- Determine the Appropriate Public Authority: Research which government department or office is most likely to possess the information. For matters of national heritage, this might involve ministries like Culture, Tourism, or departments like ASI.
- Draft Your RTI Application: Write your application clearly and concisely. State that you are seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005. Include your specific questions or requests.
- Submit and Pay the Fee: Submit your application to the PIO of the identified authority and pay the requisite fee of ₹10. Keep a copy of your application and the receipt for your records.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide details regarding the current location and status of the [name of national treasure, e.g., Kohinoor Diamond]. Please also provide certified copies of any official documents, such as gift deeds or acquisition records, related to this item. Additionally, please furnish information on all official actions taken Government of India to ascertain its whereabouts or secure its return since [mention a relevant year, e.g., 1947].
Conclusion
This case serves as a powerful reminder that the RTI Act is a dynamic tool capable of addressing a wide spectrum of information needs, even those involving complex historical and national issues. While the path to obtaining information can sometimes be challenging, the persistence of citizens, coupled with the oversight of bodies like the CIC, ensures that accountability and transparency remain at the forefront. The directive for training for officials at the Ministry of Culture underscores the importance of capacity building in effectively implementing the RTI Act. As citizens, understanding our rights and utilizing the RTI Act diligently can contribute significantly to preserving our national heritage and ensuring good governance for all.
