News
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal filed by an information requestor against the RTI Commission
View(s):By Ranjith Padmasiri
The Court of Appeal on Wednesday (November 26) dismissed an appeal filed by a retired teacher who had challenged the Right to Information Commission’s acceptance of the Uva Province Education Department’s explanation that the requested information relating to his pension had already been released to him.
This was a rare case of an information requestor appealing against a decision of the RTI Commission under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). The Appellant Petitioner, Hewa Baddege Gunaratne of Lunugala, Badulla, had filed an information request asking for documents ‘relating to the pension and contribution to the Widows and Orphans Fund (WNOP)’ sent by him to the Uva Province Education Department with relevant responses along with other documents forwarded by the department to ‘other institutions’.
He complained that he had been unable to receive his pension as a result. He appealed to the RTI Commission after the information officer and designated officer of the Uva Province Education Department (the Public Authority) failed to respond. However, the department had explained before the commission that it had only his letter of retirement, which had been supplied to him. Other documents relevant to teacher retirements were maintained by the Zonal Offices, from which he had already obtained the information using the RTI Act.
After concluding that the requested information had therefore been received by him, the RTI Commission had, however, reprimanded the province’s Education Department for the long delay in responding to him and called for an inquiry. Thereafter, an inquiry was carried out against the responsible officer, and a report of the disciplinary inquiry was provided to him.
Not satisfied with the decision, the Appellant Petitioner complained to the Court of Appeal, stating that he had only got unwanted and unnecessary information. The Court of Appeal, however, pointed out that the Appellant Petitioner should have kept copies of the letters that he himself had sent to the Public Authority, and ‘any other letters’ relevant to his retirement should have been copied to him. The Public Authority had confirmed that it had only the letter of retirement as provided, and counsel for the Appellant Petitioner had clarified that he is, in fact, now receiving his pension when specifically questioned on that point.
In the circumstances, “we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Commission,” Justice R. Gurusinghe said, with Justice Dr S. Premachandra agreeing (CA RTI 0001-2020, Hewa Baddage Gunaratne v RTIC and Another, 26.11.2025).
Earlier, the Appeal Court had directed the Appellant Petitioner to add the Uva Province Education Department as a respondent in the appeal petition in pursuance of ‘upholding the spirit of the RTI Act and ensuring fairness in the appeal process rather than solely naming the RTI Commission before the Court.
“This Court finds that making the Commission a respondent in appeals which are to obtain information from Public Authorities does not serve any purpose, and it rather impedes the functioning of the Commission which has been established to serve a vital democratic role, by entangling it in a plethora of cases unnecessarily…the RTI Commission is not typically required to defend its own determinations before the Court” (per Justice Neil Iddawela as he then was). The RTI Commission should be named as a respondent only for the limited purpose of receiving notice, the Court said.
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!