News
‘The Rule should be Access to Information and the Exemption should be Refusal,’ Court of Appeal holds
View(s):By Ranjith Padmasiri
Delivering three judgments upholding decisions handed down by the Right to Information (RTI) Commission in 2022 following several appeals filed before the Commission by former employees of Sri Lanka Telecom (SLT) asking for information relating to various aspects of the functioning of SLT, the Court of Appeal emphasized this Thursday (3rd July 2025) that ‘transparency and accountability of public authorities is of paramount concern.’
Specifically dismissing an argument by SLT that the RTI Commission had erred by relying on its previous decisions on similar issues as ‘binding precedent’, the Court (per Dr Sumudu Premachandra J with R. Gurusinghe J agreeing) took the view that ‘the RTI Commission, as a quasi-judicial authority, should maintain uniformity in its decisions (SLT v RTIC and G Surendran, CA/RTI/0004/2023, decision of 03.07.2025). This appeal concerned SLT’s denial of an information request under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by a former Deputy General Manager asking for details of candidates, panel members, expert assessors, scoring details and reasons for selecting a particular candidate as General Manager in Data Centre and Cloud Services.
On the RTI Commission directing SLT to disclose on the principle that the interview/selection process cannot be secret, SLT declined saying that this would release ‘sensitive details’ such as candidate names, interview scores and selection justifications affecting constitutionally guaranteed privacy rights of third parties.
Justice Premachandra however pointed out that the selection process is supported by public funds and that the RTI Commission had consistently held to the same principle previously. This was a stand taken by the Commission ‘considering the duty incumbent on Public Authorities in the wider public interest, to maintain transparency and accountability in recruitment procedures in line with the preamble to the RTI Act’ he noted.
The Court reiterated the same principles in two other judgments handed down on the same day, all of which extensively examined previous judgments of Sri Lanka’s appellate courts under the RTI Act, decisions of the RTI Commission and precedents of Indian Courts. In the second judgment, it was held that the directive of the Commission to release the breakdown of legal fees paid to attorneys-at-law from public funds by SLT is ‘well founded and cannot be assailed.’ The Court observed that ‘legal fees are costs paid from public funds,’ amounts to ‘disclosable information’ and ‘does not qualify as personal information or information protected by privilege under written law.’
SLT had contended that the release of the information may result in ‘reputational harm to legal professionals.’ But in posing a question as to why, if the aggregate legal fees are published in annual reports, there can be any objection to releasing the breakdown, Justice Premachandra noted that, ‘this Court strongly holds that transparency in the use of public funds, especially in legal expenditures by public institutions, cannot be considered confidential. The disclosure of such information does not violate constitutional protections under Article 14A (2)… nor does it infringe on privacy or reputational rights.’
There is no ‘legitimate’ ground to refuse disclosure, particularly as ‘no counsel’s names were requested.’ Further, the harm of disclosure has not been established overriding the public interest, he asserted, pointing out that legal practitioners are ‘subjected to Inland Revenue laws’ (SLT v RTIC and C.J Wijayawardhana, CA/RTI/0002/2023, decision of 03.07.2025).
In the third judgment affirming a directive to SLT to release information relating to the foreign business travels of its Chief Operating Officer (COO) from 2010-2019, the Court dismissed the argument that the expenses in aggregate were anyway indicated as ‘operating costs’ in publicly available financial information of SLT as a listed company. But ‘the question is, would that suffice for the public?” Justice Premachandra asked.
‘If the Public Authority spends public funds for its high officials, the reasons, performance, and breakdown of expenditures cannot be treated as private information’ he said (SLT v RTIC and G Surendran, CA/RTI/ 0003/2023). He went on to add that personal information is not connected to any public activity or interest but ‘if the public essence is touched, it can no longer be treated as personal…information that is considered private and sensitive, such as health records or personal financial details is generally exempt from disclosure…‘
In the battle between the ‘right to privacy’ and the ‘right to information’ the Court stressed that where ‘a potential conflict arises’ in regard to personal information, ‘States need to develop mechanisms for identifying core issues to limit conflicts and for balancing the rights.’
The best way to say that you found the home of your dreams is by finding it on Hitad.lk. We have listings for apartments for sale or rent in Sri Lanka, no matter what locale you're looking for! Whether you live in Colombo, Galle, Kandy, Matara, Jaffna and more - we've got them all!