In March 2026, Oxford University’s Ashmolean Museum, returned (also here) a 16th century bronze icon of Saint Thirumankai Alvar to the Indian Government. The museum had acquired the idol in 1967 at Sotheby’s. However, recent research traced it to Shri Soundararaja Perumal Temple in Thadikombu, Tamil Nadu, from where it had disappeared in the 1960’s; a modern replica had since been installed at the temple to continue worship. The museum described the repatriation as ‘not merely restoration of an object of art, but the reunification of an icon of faith with its intended shrine, restoring memory, and enabling cultural continuity’.

The event has reignited the restitution debate. Traditionally, this debate is approached from a socio-moral perspective, or if in law, through property-rights perspectives. However, it must be appreciated that such restitution is also linked to the question of human rights. A visit to almost any of the world’s major museums reveals that the movement of artefacts has historically been unidirectional, from erstwhile colonies to former metropoles, and from the Global South to the Global North.

Religious Significance: Historical v. Continuous

Restitution-resisters may argue that exhibited items are purely informative objects on display, removed from their religio-cultural undertones, and that the items represent different periods in time whose historical religious importance may not carry into the present day. However, these arguments cannot be applied universally to all faith-based artefacts, especially those tracing their origins to unbroken civilisations. For example, it may reasonably be argued that the religious value of figurines of ancient Roman and Greek gods does not largely continue into the present day. The same, however, is not true for artefacts from countries such as India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, where religious significance remains very much alive. Indeed, evidence for this comes from similar or identical objects from the same era that remain in active, continuous worship in the temples and monasteries of these countries.

Why do such Restitutions have a Human Rights Angle?

These appropriated artefacts, as objects of continuous religious reverence, serve as conduits of collective memory and intergenerational religious practice. As a result, their removal from their religio-cultural ecosystem dents the concerned civilisation’s ability to pass on this memory to future generations. Arguably, this deprives the future generations of the right to take part in ‘cultural life’ thereby infringing on this recognised right under Article 15(a) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Notably, artefacts also form an ‘associated’ part of intangible cultural heritage (as per the definition under Article 2(1) of UNESCO’s Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage). Without them, various ‘social practices, rituals and festive events’ (which already, or may potentially, constitute ‘intangible cultural heritage’ as per Article 2(2)(c)) are either rendered incomplete or are completely erased. Refusing restitution, therefore, amounts to a violation of the rights recognised under these instruments.

Current Measures

Currently, ownership-reassignment is achieved through alternate mechanisms. One involves research and advocacy measures, as in the Ashmolean case. Another involves governments or actors from the origin-state facilitating a direct property purchase, as illustrated by the purchase of Piprahwa Buddha Relics from Sotheby’s. All such restitutions either occur independently between countries (or their institutions), or under the assistance of UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation (ICPRCP). However, the ICPRCP is purely normative and carries no binding force. Therefore, every restitution depends on bilateral cooperation and the custodial state’s willingness to return.

Globally, statutory or practical support remains limited, and few states directly recognise the need to restitute. In the UK, following the Charities Act 2022, museums may be permitted to return objects only where they consider themselves under a clear ‘moral obligation’ to do so (Section 106(1)(b)). However, key institutions like the British Museum and the Victoria & Albert Museum are excluded as they are governed by their own statutes (the British Museum Act, 1963 and the National Heritage Act, 1983 respectively), that restrict deaccessioning. Few nations, however, show a promising trajectory. In April 2026, France adopted a law permitting the government to approve restitution by decree rather than through individual parliamentary enactments. In 2022, Belgium adopted a bill providing a general framework for the restitution and return of colonial collections. Yet these remain isolated examples, and do not evidence any general consensus across states. Further, even these legislative efforts are narrowed by non-retroactivity, limitation periods, governmental discretion, or definitional carve-outs.

Proposed Measure : A doctrine of ‘Sacred or Religious Object’ Exceptionality

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples already recognises the right to restitution of ‘     cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without free, prior and informed consent’      (Article 11). As a baseline, it is proposed that international standards must categorise objects and create an exception-based regime for the specific return of sacred artefacts. They require recognition as ‘uprooted’ objects of faith whose unceremonial public display, removal from associated rituals, and commercial exhibition, undermine their religio-cultural significance.

Current restitution efforts treat sacred and non-sacred objects alike. While this advances a general and legitimate demand for restitution, it dilutes results. Experience demonstrates that negotiating restitution remains sensitive and holding-countries are hesitant to relinquish control. A priority-based framework creating specific and direct obligations concerning sacred or religious objects may translate the rhetoric of cultural rights into enforceable, narrowly tailored duties of return.