Ceylon Daily News: Sri Lanka: Friday, 15 May 2026.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Dr. Sumudu Premachandra with Justice R. Gurusinghe agreeing, has been widely viewed as a major affirmation of transparency, accountability, and students’ rights within Sri Lanka’s higher education system.
A landmark judgment
delivered by the Court of Appeal has significantly strengthened the rights of
university students and examination candidates in Sri Lanka by affirming that
examinees are entitled to obtain their scrutinised answer scripts under the Right
to Information (RTI) Act.
In a ruling delivered on May 8, the Court dismissed a revision application filed by the The Open University of Sri Lanka challenging an order of the Right to Information Commission directing the university to release the answer scripts and marks of a student who sat for the university’s LLB Selection Test.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Dr. Sumudu Premachandra with Justice R. Gurusinghe agreeing, has been widely viewed as a major affirmation of transparency, accountability, and students’ rights within Sri Lanka’s higher education system.
The case arose after R.A. Janaka Roshan Ranasinghe sought access to the answer scripts and marks of his daughter, R.A.D. Sashindya Ranasinghe, who sat for the Open University’s LLB entrance examination held in January 2023. The university initially refused the request, relying on Section 5(1)(l) of the RTI Act, which permits denial of information where disclosure would “harm the integrity of an examination.”
University authorities argued that releasing answer scripts and examination-related material could compromise confidentiality and undermine the integrity of future examinations.
However, the RTI Commission rejected that position and ordered the disclosure of the requested information. The university then sought to challenge that determination before the Court of Appeal. In a strongly worded judgment favouring transparency, the Court held that a student requesting access to his or her own answer script could not reasonably be denied such information.
Justice Premachandra observed: “There cannot be hide-and-seek games in higher institutions, and transparency is a paramount consideration.”
Importantly, the Court noted that if a standard marking scheme had been properly applied, disclosure should not threaten the integrity of the examination process.
RTI Overrides University By-Laws
A central issue in the case was whether university examination by-laws could prevent disclosure of answer scripts. The Court firmly rejected that argument, holding that Section 4 of the RTI Act gives the legislation overriding effect over inconsistent institutional regulations or by-laws.
The judgment stated that university rules “suppressing the RTI” had “no force in law” where they conflicted with the statutory right to information.
This aspect of the ruling may have broader implications for all State universities and public educational institutions that maintain restrictive policies regarding examination records.
The Court also drew extensively from Indian jurisprudence on students’ rights to access evaluated answer scripts.
Citing the Indian Supreme Court decision in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011), the Court recognised that evaluated answer scripts constitute “information” under RTI laws because they contain the opinions and assessments of examiners.
The Sri Lankan Court endorsed the principle that: “Every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer-books.”
At the same time, the Court recognised that the identity of examiners could remain confidential in order to protect evaluative independence. The judgment also clarified that public authorities cannot issue blanket refusals under the RTI Act without demonstrating concrete and credible reasons.
The Court stressed that exemptions under Section 5(1)(l) are not absolute and must be interpreted narrowly. Merely claiming that disclosure could affect examination integrity was insufficient without factual justification.
There is no doubt this aspect of the ruling could influence future disputes involving public examinations, university admissions tests, and professional qualifying examinations. In addition to dismissing the university’s substantive arguments, the Court criticised the institution for invoking the Court’s revisionary jurisdiction instead of pursuing the statutory appeal mechanism provided under the RTI Act.
The judges observed that revisionary powers are discretionary and reserved only for exceptional circumstances involving grave injustice or manifest error.
Since the university had failed to show exceptional circumstances or explain why it had not pursued the ordinary appeal process, the Court declined to intervene.
Wider Significance
The ruling is likely to have far-reaching consequences for students across Sri Lanka seeking greater transparency in examination and admissions processes.
Legal observers note that the decision reinforces several important principles:
For thousands of students who annually sit competitive examinations for university admission, professional qualifications, and public sector recruitment, the ruling may become an important safeguard against opaque or arbitrary evaluation practices. As the country continues to strengthen its RTI framework nearly a decade after the enactment of the RTI Act in 2016, the Court of Appeal’s decision marks another significant milestone in the country’s evolving culture of transparency and accountability.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Dr. Sumudu Premachandra with Justice R. Gurusinghe agreeing, has been widely viewed as a major affirmation of transparency, accountability, and students’ rights within Sri Lanka’s higher education system.
In a ruling delivered on May 8, the Court dismissed a revision application filed by the The Open University of Sri Lanka challenging an order of the Right to Information Commission directing the university to release the answer scripts and marks of a student who sat for the university’s LLB Selection Test.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Dr. Sumudu Premachandra with Justice R. Gurusinghe agreeing, has been widely viewed as a major affirmation of transparency, accountability, and students’ rights within Sri Lanka’s higher education system.
The case arose after R.A. Janaka Roshan Ranasinghe sought access to the answer scripts and marks of his daughter, R.A.D. Sashindya Ranasinghe, who sat for the Open University’s LLB entrance examination held in January 2023. The university initially refused the request, relying on Section 5(1)(l) of the RTI Act, which permits denial of information where disclosure would “harm the integrity of an examination.”
University authorities argued that releasing answer scripts and examination-related material could compromise confidentiality and undermine the integrity of future examinations.
However, the RTI Commission rejected that position and ordered the disclosure of the requested information. The university then sought to challenge that determination before the Court of Appeal. In a strongly worded judgment favouring transparency, the Court held that a student requesting access to his or her own answer script could not reasonably be denied such information.
Justice Premachandra observed: “There cannot be hide-and-seek games in higher institutions, and transparency is a paramount consideration.”
Importantly, the Court noted that if a standard marking scheme had been properly applied, disclosure should not threaten the integrity of the examination process.
RTI Overrides University By-Laws
A central issue in the case was whether university examination by-laws could prevent disclosure of answer scripts. The Court firmly rejected that argument, holding that Section 4 of the RTI Act gives the legislation overriding effect over inconsistent institutional regulations or by-laws.
The judgment stated that university rules “suppressing the RTI” had “no force in law” where they conflicted with the statutory right to information.
This aspect of the ruling may have broader implications for all State universities and public educational institutions that maintain restrictive policies regarding examination records.
The Court also drew extensively from Indian jurisprudence on students’ rights to access evaluated answer scripts.
Citing the Indian Supreme Court decision in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011), the Court recognised that evaluated answer scripts constitute “information” under RTI laws because they contain the opinions and assessments of examiners.
The Sri Lankan Court endorsed the principle that: “Every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer-books.”
At the same time, the Court recognised that the identity of examiners could remain confidential in order to protect evaluative independence. The judgment also clarified that public authorities cannot issue blanket refusals under the RTI Act without demonstrating concrete and credible reasons.
The Court stressed that exemptions under Section 5(1)(l) are not absolute and must be interpreted narrowly. Merely claiming that disclosure could affect examination integrity was insufficient without factual justification.
There is no doubt this aspect of the ruling could influence future disputes involving public examinations, university admissions tests, and professional qualifying examinations. In addition to dismissing the university’s substantive arguments, the Court criticised the institution for invoking the Court’s revisionary jurisdiction instead of pursuing the statutory appeal mechanism provided under the RTI Act.
The judges observed that revisionary powers are discretionary and reserved only for exceptional circumstances involving grave injustice or manifest error.
Since the university had failed to show exceptional circumstances or explain why it had not pursued the ordinary appeal process, the Court declined to intervene.
Wider Significance
The ruling is likely to have far-reaching consequences for students across Sri Lanka seeking greater transparency in examination and admissions processes.
Legal observers note that the decision reinforces several important principles:
- Students have a legitimate right to know how their examination papers were evaluated.
- Public universities are subject to the RTI regime.
- Institutional secrecy cannot override constitutional transparency obligations.
- RTI exemptions relating to examinations must be narrowly interpreted.
For thousands of students who annually sit competitive examinations for university admission, professional qualifications, and public sector recruitment, the ruling may become an important safeguard against opaque or arbitrary evaluation practices. As the country continues to strengthen its RTI framework nearly a decade after the enactment of the RTI Act in 2016, the Court of Appeal’s decision marks another significant milestone in the country’s evolving culture of transparency and accountability.
.JPG)
.JPG)
