The Central Information Commission’s decision in Second Appeal No. CIC/ALSOI/A/2024/647749 clarifies that the right to information under the RTI Act is not absolute, particularly when disclosure of records relating to ancient religious artifacts may endanger public order or inflame communal tensions. This ruling reinforces the balance between transparency and the state’s duty to protect sensitive cultural and religious interests.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Rushab R Bhandari, sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding the transfer of three Jain idols, recovered in 2019 from Village Narshimpura and held by the Mothpur Police Thana, to the Digambar Jain Temple in Baran, Rajasthan. The information requested included the permission letter authorizing the transfer, the legal basis for the handover, an archaeological report on the idols’ antiquity and sect, photographs of the idols, documents submitted by the Baran Collector’s office, and the legality of transferring antiquities to private temples instead of museums.
Procedural History
The case progressed through three tiers of the RTI appeal mechanism:
- 11 June 2024: RTI application filed with the CPIO, Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), Jaipur.
- 5 July 2024: CPIO denied the request citing Section 4(1)(j) of the RTI Act, stating the information was not held by the public authority.
- 8 July 2024: First Appeal filed by the appellant, challenging the reply as incomplete and misleading.
- 30 July 2024: First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the CPIO’s denial.
- 27 October 2024: Second Appeal filed before the Central Information Commission.
- 20 January 2026: Hearing conducted; appellant did not appear despite notice.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought disclosure of all records pertaining to the transfer of the idols, arguing that public accountability demanded transparency in the handling of state-protected antiquities. He also questioned the legality of transferring antiquities to private religious institutions rather than public museums.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 permits denial of information when disclosure could endanger public safety or harm religious sentiments, even in cases involving state-managed antiquities.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant contended that the transfer of antiquities to private temples is a matter of public interest, especially given the ASI’s statutory duty under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 to preserve cultural heritage. He argued that the CPIO’s reliance on Section 4(1)(j) was legally flawed, as the information sought was clearly in the custody of the ASI. He further asserted that religious sentiments cannot override the statutory mandate of transparency under the RTI Act.
For the Respondent
The ASI, represented by Dr. Govind Meena, Dy. Superintending Archaeologist, argued that the information sought was exempt under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, which permits refusal if disclosure would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or prejudice the sovereignty and integrity of India. The Respondent emphasized that the idols are over 100 years old, classified as antiquities under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, and their transfer to a temple was lawful under Section 14 of that Act. Disclosure, they argued, could provoke unrest among competing religious groups and expose individuals involved to threats.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission examined the interplay between the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 and the Right to Information Act, 2005. It held that while the RTI Act promotes transparency, it does not override other statutes that impose restrictions on disclosure for compelling public interests. The Commission noted that Section 14 of the AATA permits the ASI to allow placement of antiquities in temples under strict conditions, including security and periodic inspection.
"The Commission observes that an appropriate reply in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly provided to the Appellant. Further CPIO during hearing explained in detail that the matter involves religious sentiments and any disclosure in this regard could adversely affect such sentiments and potentially endanger the safety of persons concerned."
The Commission rejected the appellant’s argument that Section 4(1)(j) was the correct basis for denial, noting that the CPIO’s response was procedurally defective but substantively justified under Section 8(1)(g). It held that the ASI’s assessment of risk to religious harmony and personal safety was reasonable and grounded in the nature of the subject matter - ancient religious artifacts with contested ownership. The Commission also emphasized that the appellant’s failure to appear at the hearing deprived him of the opportunity to rebut the claims of potential harm.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Commission held that Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act validly exempted the disclosure of records concerning the transfer of antiquities to private temples where such disclosure could endanger public safety or harm religious sentiments. The ASI’s denial was upheld as lawful and proportionate.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Religious Sentiments Can Override RTI Requests
- Practitioners must now assess whether information involving religious artifacts, rituals, or sites may trigger Section 8(1)(g) exemptions.
- Public authorities may invoke this exemption even without concrete evidence of violence, if a credible risk to communal harmony is demonstrated.
- Blanket claims of ‘religious sensitivity’ are insufficient; authorities must articulate a plausible nexus between disclosure and potential harm.
Documentation of Custodial Transfers Must Be Maintained
- While disclosure may be denied, the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 still mandates internal record-keeping for transfers under Section 14.
- Litigants may challenge non-disclosure by seeking inspection of internal registers under Section 7(1), if the information is not exempted.
- ASI’s compliance with registration and inspection protocols becomes critical to defend the legitimacy of transfers.
Non-Appearance at Hearing Is Fatal to RTI Appeals
- The Commission’s reliance on the appellant’s absence underscores that procedural diligence is non-negotiable.
- Appellants must appear personally or through authorized representatives; failure to do so may result in dismissal even if the case has merit.
- Legal practitioners should treat RTI hearing notices as mandatory appearances, not optional.
