Suspend transfer of Chandigarh heritage furniture sold in Chicago: UNESCO tells Wright Auction House

The letter, addressed to Richard Wright, President, Wright Design Auction House, Chicago, Illinois, signed by Krista Pikkat, Director, Culture and Emergencies, UNESCO Culture Sector, Paris, marks the first time the UN body has intervened directly with an auction house over the sale of Chandigarh heritage furniture. A copy of the letter is with The Tribune.

The letter states that India’s national authorities, through their permanent delegation to UNESCO, had addressed a letter to the world body on August 13 — the day when the auction was held — stating that the eight cultural objects listed in Wright’s sale catalogue, lots 138, 139, 155, 158, 160, 161, 163 and 165, form part of India's cultural heritage under Indian law. Their export from Indian territory had been carried out in violation of the Customs Act of 1962, specifically Sections 50, 113 and 114 relating to declaration obligations and the sanctions applicable in the event of a false export declaration, it added.

The UN body told the auction house that India had expressed serious concerns regarding the sale and requested that any transfer of ownership be suspended pending verification of provenance and the legality of export. The letter invoked the UNESCO International Code of Ethics for Traders in Cultural Property, adopted in 1999 and revised in 2026. It states that Principles 1 and 5 of the Code recommend that professional traders refrain from transferring ownership of cultural property when they have reasonable cause to believe that the item has been illicitly exported.

UNESCO asked the auction house to provide the Indian authorities with any supporting documentation or other information regarding the sale within the framework of the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. In the event that such documentation was not available or sufficient, UNESCO recommended that Wright “temporarily suspend the sale of this cultural property in order to clarify the situation with the country concerned.”

WHY THIS MATTERS

The UNESCO letter addresses both the six lots sold at the auction and the two held back — a writing chair from Panjab University (Lot 161) and a daybed from the PGIMER (Lot 165) — covering all eight pieces under the suspension request.

In his representation to Punjab Governor and Chandigarh Administrator Gulab Chand Kataria on August 14, heritage activist Ajay Jagga had pointed out that physical delivery of the six auctioned pieces had not yet been effected and shipment was pending from different locations.

The invocation of the Customs Act of 1962 — Sections 50, 113 and 114, covering export declaration obligations and sanctions for false declarations — is also significant. It means India has represented to UNESCO not merely that the furniture is heritage property, but that its export was carried out in violation of specific statutory provisions governing customs declarations at the point of departure from India, giving the claim a precise legal grounding beyond the general heritage protection framework.

The UNESCO action followed a series of steps initiated by the Chandigarh Administration acting on advance intelligence provided by Jagga. Jagga had also alerted the Administration on August 2, 11 days before the sale. The Administration filed a complaint with the SSP on August 3, registered an FIR on August 12 under Sections 305(e) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The Secretary, Culture, Dr Syed Abid Rashid Shah, addressed a formal communication to the Additional Secretary, UNES, Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), on August 12, seeking the suspension of Wright’s auction and invoking UNIDROIT and UNESCO obligations. India's permanent delegation to UNESCO then formally wrote to the world body on August 13.

The six lots had been sold by the time the UNESCO letter reached the auction house. However, the request for suspension of transfer of ownership means the physical handover of the furniture remains the point at which intervention is still possible.

Kataria, who took suo motu cognisance of The Tribune’s series of reports on successive overseas auctions and personally engaged with MEA functionaries to pursue each intervention, said the UNESCO letter validated the legal and diplomatic approach the Administration had adopted. “UNESCO has now formally told Wright Auction House that these items may have been illicitly exported and asked them to suspend any transfer. This gives us the clearest international backing yet. The auction may have happened, but the furniture has not moved. We will pursue every channel to ensure it does not,” he told The Tribune.