Daily Mirror: Sri Lanka: Saturday, 7th March
2026.
Colombo, March 6 (Daily Mirror)- In a landmark judgment on the scope of the Right to Information Act, the Court of Appeal has held that a private television broadcaster can be considered a “public authority” under certain circumstances and is therefore subject to the provisions of the RTI law.
The ruling arose from a
dispute between Asia Broadcasting Corporation (Pvt) Ltd, which operates Hiru
TV, and the mother of a murder suspect who sought information regarding news
reports aired about her son’s arrest. The appellant mother had requested details
about the sources of the information and whether the news had been properly
verified by the broadcaster.
The broadcaster declined to disclose the requested information, prompting the matter to be taken before the Right to Information Commission of Sri Lanka. The Commission ruled that the broadcaster falls within the definition of a “public authority” under Section 43(g) of the RTI Act and is therefore required to disclose certain information.
Dissatisfied with this determination, the broadcaster filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal challenging the Commission’s decision.
A two-judge bench of the Court of Appeal comprising Justice Dr. Sumudu Premachandra and Justice R. Gurusinghe upheld the decision of the RTI Commission. The court observed that a private entity or organisation carrying out a public function or service under a licence issued by the government or its agencies could be treated as a “public authority” under the RTI Act.
Although the petitioner is a private broadcaster, the court held that it operates under licences issued pursuant to the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation Act and the Sri Lanka Telecommunications Act, and therefore functions within a framework of statutory regulation and public interest obligations.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Premachandra observed that private media institutions perform an important public function and must remain accountable to the public. The court noted that airwaves are public property and should be used to ensure plurality of opinions and accurate reporting.
“The court is of the view that disclosing the requested information would not infringe upon press freedom but would instead strengthen the right to information guaranteed under Article 14A of the Constitution,” the judge stated.
The court also highlighted the growing threat of false information in the media landscape, including disinformation and misinformation that may be spread intentionally or unintentionally to manipulate public opinion or generate revenue. Such information, the court noted, spreads rapidly through social media and other digital platforms, leaving individuals who are affected by inaccurate reports with limited means to defend themselves.
In this context, the court stressed the importance of transparency in verifying news reports. The court held that the information requested specifically whether the news had been verified by editors and news directors and the identities of those responsible for verification did not constitute private or sensitive information and did not violate privacy rights.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal found no merit in the broadcaster’s application and affirmed the RTI Commission’s determination that the broadcaster falls within the definition of a public authority under Section 43(g) of the RTI Act.
Counsel Manoj Bandara with Thidas Herath and Thamali Wijekoon instructed by Sudath Perera Associates appeared for the petitioner broadcaster.
Counsel Suren D. Perera with Manushika Cooray and Hiruni Perera appeared for the appellant – respondent instructed by Human Rights Law Chambers.
Counsel Aruni Senarathna for the Right to Information Commission.
Colombo, March 6 (Daily Mirror)- In a landmark judgment on the scope of the Right to Information Act, the Court of Appeal has held that a private television broadcaster can be considered a “public authority” under certain circumstances and is therefore subject to the provisions of the RTI law.
The broadcaster declined to disclose the requested information, prompting the matter to be taken before the Right to Information Commission of Sri Lanka. The Commission ruled that the broadcaster falls within the definition of a “public authority” under Section 43(g) of the RTI Act and is therefore required to disclose certain information.
Dissatisfied with this determination, the broadcaster filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal challenging the Commission’s decision.
A two-judge bench of the Court of Appeal comprising Justice Dr. Sumudu Premachandra and Justice R. Gurusinghe upheld the decision of the RTI Commission. The court observed that a private entity or organisation carrying out a public function or service under a licence issued by the government or its agencies could be treated as a “public authority” under the RTI Act.
Although the petitioner is a private broadcaster, the court held that it operates under licences issued pursuant to the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation Act and the Sri Lanka Telecommunications Act, and therefore functions within a framework of statutory regulation and public interest obligations.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Premachandra observed that private media institutions perform an important public function and must remain accountable to the public. The court noted that airwaves are public property and should be used to ensure plurality of opinions and accurate reporting.
“The court is of the view that disclosing the requested information would not infringe upon press freedom but would instead strengthen the right to information guaranteed under Article 14A of the Constitution,” the judge stated.
The court also highlighted the growing threat of false information in the media landscape, including disinformation and misinformation that may be spread intentionally or unintentionally to manipulate public opinion or generate revenue. Such information, the court noted, spreads rapidly through social media and other digital platforms, leaving individuals who are affected by inaccurate reports with limited means to defend themselves.
In this context, the court stressed the importance of transparency in verifying news reports. The court held that the information requested specifically whether the news had been verified by editors and news directors and the identities of those responsible for verification did not constitute private or sensitive information and did not violate privacy rights.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal found no merit in the broadcaster’s application and affirmed the RTI Commission’s determination that the broadcaster falls within the definition of a public authority under Section 43(g) of the RTI Act.
Counsel Manoj Bandara with Thidas Herath and Thamali Wijekoon instructed by Sudath Perera Associates appeared for the petitioner broadcaster.
Counsel Suren D. Perera with Manushika Cooray and Hiruni Perera appeared for the appellant – respondent instructed by Human Rights Law Chambers.
Counsel Aruni Senarathna for the Right to Information Commission.
.JPG)
.JPG)
