News
Court of Appeal affirms private broadcasters come under RTI Act
View(s):- Court backs RTI Commission ruling, points to public interest duties of broadcasters
- Commission directed Hiru TV to provide information on verification process, but upheld right to protect source
By Ranjith Padmasiri
In a noteworthy development securing the ‘right to know’ of citizens under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Court of Appeal has affirmed the Right to Information Commission (RTI Commission)’s decision that Sri Lanka’s private broadcasters are publicly accountable under the RTI Act.
In writing for the court, Justice Dr Sumudu Premachandra with Justice R Gurusinghe agreeing, handed down the far reaching judgment on Thursday (5) cautioning that “the role of the media is to provide the viewers, listeners and readers and the public in general with information and views tested and found as true and correct.” The court held that Asia Broadcasting (Pvt) Limited which owns Hiru TV, was a ‘Public Authority’, stating that private broadcasters perform a vital ‘public function’ and are accountable not only for profit but also in the public interest.
In this case, the mother of a murder suspect had requested information from Hiru TV regarding the sources and verification of news reports aired about her son’s arrest titled “Alawathugoda murder mystery revealed – husband remanded” broadcast in 2023. She alleged that false and inaccurate reports of a ‘confession’ made by her son in regard to the incident had been aired. After several requests to correct the news reports were ignored, she filed an information request asking interalia whether the information had been verified by the editors and news directors as well as identities of the same.
The appeal was heard in numerous sittings before the RTI Commission comprising (then) Chair (Rtd) Justice Upaly Abeyratne, then Commissioner/ (Rtd) Justice Rohini Walgama, Commissioner/senior attorney-at-law Kishali Pinto-Jayawardena and then Commissioner/attorney-at-law Jagath Liyanarachchi during 2024 with lawyers appearing for the information requestor as well as for Hiru TV. The commission directed Hiru TV to furnish information regarding the verification of the accuracy of the reports, holding, however, that other items of information could be held back from release given the need to protect sources of information.
The broadcaster’s refusal to release the information stating that it was not a ‘Public Authority’ was dismissed, with the commission taking the view that broadcasters operate on limited frequencies granted and regulated by the state through licences in the public interest.
That decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal by Hiru TV on the basis that the commission had decided contrary to law and misinterpreted the RTI Act. Hiru TV had argued that as a media organisation, its primary objective is commercial, and that providing a ‘benefit’ to the public through news does not constitute a ‘public service’ in the legal sense. It was further contended that the mere possession of a regulatory license or the use of public resources does not transform a private company into a body performing a ‘public service’ or ‘statutory function’ as defined under Section 43 of the RTI Act.
Section 43 of the RTI Act provides that a private entity or organisation operating under a contract, licence, a partnership or an agreement from the government, or its agencies or from a local body comes within the reach of the RTI Act but only if that private entity performs ‘a statutory or public function or service.’ Once held to be a Public Authority under this provision, information can, however, only be asked in regard to activities covered by that ‘statutory or public function or service.’
Dismissing the appeal with costs, the court agreed with the commission that broadcasters perform a ‘public function or service’ by utilising public frequencies licensed by the state (Ministry of Mass Media/Telecommunication Regulatory Commission) and were ‘Public Authorities’ under the RTI Act.
Quoting Lankan and Indian jurisprudence along with comparative law precedents, Justice Premachandra cautioned that private broadcasters were bound by ‘public interest controls and by statutory obligations’ and must adhere to ‘high standards of programming’ and that ‘airwaves are public property that must be used to ensure a plurality of opinions and accurate reporting.’ He noted that the information requested regarding the verification of news reports was neither private nor sensitive and did not violate privacy rights.
Further, it was emphasised that a fiduciary relationship did not bar the release of the information either. Clarifying that “…a fiduciary relationship means where one person holds information in trust for another, such as banker-client or doctor-patient; could be exempted from disclosure” he pointed out that this “protects confidential personal or commercial data which the court or the RTI Commission may order disclosure if public interest overrides confidentiality.”
But in this case, the broadcaster “does not have any fiduciary relationship with the particular information provider,” he added. It was reiterated that the right to information forms part of the freedom of expression guaranteed under the Constitution and that access to information can only be restricted under the specific limitations set out in Section 5 of the RTI Act.
“We are of the view that disclosing the requested information would not infringe upon press freedoms, but would instead strengthen the right to information under Article 14A of the Constitution,” he 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!