Supreme Court: Deliberating upon a public interest litigation filed for protection of historical artifacts preserved in the museums all over the nation and seeking direction for the provision of adequate security arrangements for the same, the Bench of A.K. Goel and T.S. Thakur, JJ., observed that the protection of historical artifacts is a constitutional mandate and also India after having ratified the UNESCO Convention on the means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property which reiterates and affirms the mandate. The Court further observed that Government especially Ministry of Culture must look into the constraints of limited man- power and finances and institute adequate monitoring mechanism. The Court however did not deem it necessary to issue specific directions to the Government.
The PIL came into being after the embarrassing incident of theft in the museum at Visvabharati University in Shantiniketan where the Noble Prize medal of celebrated laureate Rabindranath Tagore was stolen; also there were several incidents of theft in Asiatic Society of Calcutta and Victoria Memorial. The petitioner appearing in person contended that museums like Visvabharati University are national assets that require security and the State under Article 49 of the Constitution is bound to protect every place or object of artistic and historical significance. The Union of India represented by Sushma Suri put forth before that Court that the Government recognizes the threat looming large upon the museums in respect of security. The Government presented before the Courts various affidavits where they put forth the steps taken to ensure safety to the museums across the nation, like entrusting the CBI with the investigation of the theft at Visvabharati; setting up of a committee for assessing the security needs of the museums, etc. However the Government maintained that since the historical artifacts are scattered all over the country in museums controlled by the State governments or private authorities, it becomes a difficult task to take responsibility of all the museums and the same is not financially feasible, still the Government ensures that periodical reviews of the artifacts kept the various museums are done by the officials concerned.
Hearing the account from both the sides the Court stated that bound both constitutionally and as signatory to the abovementioned UNESCO convention, the Government must take necessary steps to address the concern raised by the petitioner. The Court however directed that Secretary, Ministry of Culture should look into the issue and formulate suitable steps within one month from the receipt of the Order and hold review meetings once in every six month. Subhas Datta v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 51, decided on 03.02.2015