Daily Mirror: Sri Lanka: Wednesday, 9th July
2025.
In another judgment broadening the scope of the applicability of the Right to Information Act, the Court of Appeal recently held that, in the modern era, Right to Information laws are crucial for combating corruption by increasing transparency and accountability within public institutions.
In its judgment, the Court
of Appeal upheld the Right to Information Commission’s (RTIC) directive to
release information relating to former Sri Lanka Telecom (SLT) Chief Operating
Officer (COO) Priyantha Fernandez’s foreign business travels from 2010 to 2019,
including approvals and expenses.
The appellant, G. Surendran, had initially requested this information through an RTI application dated 03.01.2022.
With Court of Appeal Justice R. Gurusinghe agreeing, Justice Dr. Sumudu Premachandra delivered the judgment, observing that the requested information is well within the interest and activity of the public domain.
“By granting citizens the right to access information held by public authorities, the authorities can expose instances of corruption, maladministration, and abuse of power. This access to information enables citizens to participate more effectually in public life and hold those in power accountable. To sustain a developed country, bribery and corruption must be curtailed. Thus, the rule should be access to information, and the exemption should be refusal,” Justice Premachandra observed.
The Petitioner (SLT), the Public Authority, by this appeal, sought to set aside the RTI Commission’s decision dated 14 December 2022.
The Petitioner claims exemption under Sections 5(1)(a) and (g) of the RTI Act. The Petitioner contends that the RTIC acted in violation of statutory procedure by directing the release of information before the expiration of the statutory appeal period under Section 34(1) of the RTI Act. The Petitioner further argues that the Commission misapplied the law and failed to consider the legal protections and commercial sensitivities applicable to a listed company governed by the CSE’s public disclosure rules. It submits that the Commission’s decision was arbitrary, contrary to law, and violated constitutional rights, specifically Article 14A(2) on access to information and Article 28(e) concerning the duties of citizens, particularly where third-party interests and confidentiality obligations are involved.
In his objections, the appellant raised several preliminary objections, stating that the Public Authority Petitioner’s application is based on false and forged facts, lacks a valid affidavit, and constitutes a misuse of the legal process, warranting its dismissal *in limine.* The appellant argued that the application is legally misconceived and non-compliant with the Court of Appeal Appellate Rules.
The appellant further emphasized that under the Right to Information Act No. 12 of 2016, the Petitioner is required to uphold principles of transparency and accountability. The Appellant-Respondent reiterates that his revised request, limited to details of foreign travels, approvals, and expenses related to Mr. Priyantha Fernandez, is not exempt under Sections 5(1)(a) or 5(1)(g) of the RTI Act, contrary to the Petitioner’s position, and that the refusal to disclose the requested information is unlawful.
Kaushalya Nawarathna, P.C., with Prabudda Hettiarachchi, instructed by Halidja Begum, appeared for the Petitioner.
T. Sivanandarajah appeared for the Appellant while Himali Kularathne, with Aruni Senarathna, appeared for the RTI Commission.
In another judgment broadening the scope of the applicability of the Right to Information Act, the Court of Appeal recently held that, in the modern era, Right to Information laws are crucial for combating corruption by increasing transparency and accountability within public institutions.
The appellant, G. Surendran, had initially requested this information through an RTI application dated 03.01.2022.
With Court of Appeal Justice R. Gurusinghe agreeing, Justice Dr. Sumudu Premachandra delivered the judgment, observing that the requested information is well within the interest and activity of the public domain.
“By granting citizens the right to access information held by public authorities, the authorities can expose instances of corruption, maladministration, and abuse of power. This access to information enables citizens to participate more effectually in public life and hold those in power accountable. To sustain a developed country, bribery and corruption must be curtailed. Thus, the rule should be access to information, and the exemption should be refusal,” Justice Premachandra observed.
The Petitioner (SLT), the Public Authority, by this appeal, sought to set aside the RTI Commission’s decision dated 14 December 2022.
The Petitioner claims exemption under Sections 5(1)(a) and (g) of the RTI Act. The Petitioner contends that the RTIC acted in violation of statutory procedure by directing the release of information before the expiration of the statutory appeal period under Section 34(1) of the RTI Act. The Petitioner further argues that the Commission misapplied the law and failed to consider the legal protections and commercial sensitivities applicable to a listed company governed by the CSE’s public disclosure rules. It submits that the Commission’s decision was arbitrary, contrary to law, and violated constitutional rights, specifically Article 14A(2) on access to information and Article 28(e) concerning the duties of citizens, particularly where third-party interests and confidentiality obligations are involved.
In his objections, the appellant raised several preliminary objections, stating that the Public Authority Petitioner’s application is based on false and forged facts, lacks a valid affidavit, and constitutes a misuse of the legal process, warranting its dismissal *in limine.* The appellant argued that the application is legally misconceived and non-compliant with the Court of Appeal Appellate Rules.
The appellant further emphasized that under the Right to Information Act No. 12 of 2016, the Petitioner is required to uphold principles of transparency and accountability. The Appellant-Respondent reiterates that his revised request, limited to details of foreign travels, approvals, and expenses related to Mr. Priyantha Fernandez, is not exempt under Sections 5(1)(a) or 5(1)(g) of the RTI Act, contrary to the Petitioner’s position, and that the refusal to disclose the requested information is unlawful.
Kaushalya Nawarathna, P.C., with Prabudda Hettiarachchi, instructed by Halidja Begum, appeared for the Petitioner.
T. Sivanandarajah appeared for the Appellant while Himali Kularathne, with Aruni Senarathna, appeared for the RTI Commission.
.JPG)
.JPG)
