News
Releasing audit reports to managing partner not an ‘invasion of privacy’ under RTI Act, CA rules
View(s):By Ranjith Padmasiri
In a judgment by R. Gurusinghe J (with Dr S. Premachandra agreeing) handed down this Tuesday, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal filed by the People’s Bank against a 2022 order of the Right to Information Commission (RTI Commission) directing the bank to release copies of audit and/or reports of inquiries conducted in 2015 by the Chief Internal Auditor regarding a partnership, ‘M.H.B. de Silva and Company’.
Also upheld was the Commission’s directive to release copies of the ledger accounts and information pertaining to the suspense account of the partnership, subject, however, to redaction of details of external parties, if any, under Section 6 of the RTI Act.
The RTI Commission had taken into account the fact that inquiries had commenced following a complaint of certain ‘irregularities’ made by the information requestor himself, then the managing partner. In the circumstances, there was no justification of ‘confidentiality’ in refusing to release the information which, on the contrary, speaks to the accountability and transparency of the bank operating on public funds, the Commission had noted.
Before the Court, the bank had challenged the Commission order on the basis that the information amounted to third party information and that a ‘fiduciary relationship’ existed between the bank and the partnership. However in dismissing that objection, Justice Gurusinghe (Peoples Bank v RTIC and M.H.S. Wijesekera, CA 05/2023) pointed to the fact that the information requestor is, in fact, the managing partner of the partnership which is not a separate legal entity from its partners and therefore, he was not a ‘third party.’
‘As per the partnership agreement and the mandate given to the petitioner bank at the time of opening the account in the name of the partnership, it was the 2nd respondent who was recognised as the sole authorised signatory, which the petitioner was well aware of but failed to consider,’ the Court said.
Meanwhile, an objection raised by the bank to releasing the information on ‘privacy grounds’ was similarly dismissed. ‘Providing such information would not constitute an unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy,’ the Court added.
The Bench went on to quote a previous decision of the Court (per Sampath B. Abeyakoon J, in Chamara Sampath v RTIC, 28.02.2023) where it was remarked that, ‘it is abundantly clear that by enacting RTI Act, No 12 of 2016, the intention of the legislature had been to give effect more robustly to the provisions of the Constitution, by fostering a culture of transparency and accountability in Public Authorities…’
The Court also took into account the specific direction made by the RTI Commission to redact information of others, if any, in the suspense account, emphasising that if such information could not ‘reasonably’ be severed, that explanation should have been provided to the Commission by the bank at the appeal hearing.
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!