Back
2025 Supreme(SRI)(CA) 240
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA
R. Gurusinghe, Sumudu Premachandra, JJ
Sri Lanka Telecom PLC – Appellant
Versus
Right to Information Commission and other – Respondent
CA/RTI/0004/2023
Kaushalya Nawarathna, P.C. with Prabudda Hettiarachchi instructed by Halidja Begum for the Petitioner. T. Sivanandarajah for the Appellant-Respondent. Himali Kularathne with Aruni Senarathna for the 1st Respondent.
The right to information mandates public authorities to disclose relevant details unless a compelling privacy interest is demonstrated.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act No. 12 of 2016 - Sections 5(1)(a), 5(1)(g) - A public authority may deny information if it pertains to personal details without public interest, but must justify such denial. (Para 11)
(B) Public Interest - The need for transparency in government dealings must prevail unless severe privacy concerns are established. (Paras 12-22)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, a public listed company, seeks to set aside the RTI Commission's decision directing the disclosure of information regarding candidates for a managerial position, arguing it violates privacy rights. (Para 3, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the RTI Commission's decision, asserting that the requested information was necessary for transparency in public authority actions funded by the public. (Paras 12-19)
Issues: The key issues revolve around the balance between transparency and privacy rights, and whether the information sought falls under exemptions in the RTI Act. (Paras 7, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that disclosure of the selection process information enhances accountability and is crucial for an informed citizenry, dismissing the claim of privacy infringement as unsubstantiated. (Paras 18-19)
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Dr. Sumudu Premachandra J.
1] This appeal was argued together with RTI-0002/2023 and RTI -0003/2023; however, parties have asked for separate judgments for all three appeals.
2] In this appeal, the Petitioner seeks that RTIC Appeals Nos. 703/2022, 707/2022, and 708/2022 be set aside. The Petitioner also seeks interim reliefs, costs and any other relief the Court deems appropriate.
3] The Petitioner, is a public listed company incorporated under the Companies Act No. 7 of 2007 and listed under the rules of the Colombo Stock Exchange (CSE), challenges an amalgamated decision of the Right to Information (RTI) Commission dated 14 December 2022 regarding the above mentioned RTIC Appeals No. 703/2022, 707/2022, and 708/2022.
4] It is to be noted that the original information request, dated 14 December 2021, sought detailed data concerning the selection process for the General Manager position in Data Centre and Cloud Services, including names of candidates, panel members, expert assessors, scoring details, and reasons for selecting a particular candidate.
5] Precisely, the Appellant-Respondent by Information Request dated 14.12.2021 requested the following information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act No.12 of 2016;
Names of all contestants applied for the GM/Data Centre & Cloud Services position for which the applications were called as per Acting CEO circular 2/2018 (issued on November 5th, 2018)
• Names of all panellists who interviewed the contestants
• Names of panellists who are the experts or have Domain knowledge in the Data Centre and Cloud Services Area
• Name of the officer who prepared the job description for GM/DC & CS
• Marks given at the first round and second round for interviews for the GM/DC & CS position by all the panellists for all contestants
• The reasons why Mr.K.K.A.K. Kapurubandara was selected as GM/DC & CS
6] The said request was denied by the Petitioner’s information officer on 28th December 2021 under Section 5 (1)(a) and (g) of the RTI Act, and his decision was upheld by the designated officer on 31 January 2022. Feeling aggrieved, the Appellant Respondent appealed to the RTI Commission, and the RTI Commission directed the disclosure of the revised information. This appeal brings the said decision.
7] The main argument of the Learned President’s Counsel for the Petitioner is that this decision adversely affects its interests and those of third parties, particularly regarding privacy and reputational harm. The Petitioner says that the revised information requests included sensitive details such as candidate names, interview scores, and selection justifications—information the Petitioner believes is exempt from disclosure under the Act. The petitioner also claims that the decision fails to strike a balance between transparency and the protection of constitutionally guaranteed rights of third parties.
8] The Appellant Respondent raises several objections, asserting that the Petitioner’s application is fundamentally flawed, based on false and forged facts, and constitutes an abuse of court process. It is argued that the application lacks a valid affidavit, fails to comply with the Court of Appeal rules, and is both legally misconceived and inadmissible. The Appellant Respondent claims the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief sought and has not disclosed material facts, making the application frivolous and vexatious.
9] In the objection, the Appellant Respondent states that he served the Petitioner for over 31 years and retired as Deputy General Manager. He emphasizes that the Petitioner is majority-owned by the Sri Lankan Government and thus qualifies as a public authority under the RTI Act. He maintains that the information he requested falls within the scope of the Act and is not exempt under Sections 5 (1)(a) or (g). He contends that the RTI Commission correctly determined on 14 December 2022 that the requested information must be released and that the Petitioner’s refusal lacked legal basi
