Strengthening the Right to Information
Photo courtesy of The Seattle Times
This year will mark a decade since the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) was enacted. The RTI Act has been lauded for its effectiveness in enabling information disclosure. Under Article 14A of the constitution, the right to information is a fundamental right.
The RTI Act enables citizens to access information in possession, custody or control of a public authority. The definition of public authority under the RTI Act is wide and encompasses both state and non-state actors. In M.G.K. Dissanayake vs. Asia Broadcasting Corporation (PVT) Ltd, Asia Broadcasting Corporation was considered a public authority for utilizing radio frequencies under a license obtained from the state and performing functions that were considered a public function.
Under Section 34 of the Act, any citizen or public authority aggrieved by the decision of the commission may appeal to the Court of Appeal within one month of receiving the decision. At the end of 2024, around 36 appeals were pending. Currently, around 35 appeals are pending. Several notable decisions have been passed by the Court of Appeal affirming the orders passed by the RTI Commission.[1]
In Litro Gas Lanka Limited and Litro Gas Terminal Lanka (Private) Limited vs. W.K.S. Karunarathne[2] and Bank of Ceylon vs Right to Information Commission[3], the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the commission regarding the disclosure of salaries/allowances of top management and information of candidates who sat for competitive examinations respectively. In both cases, the broader public interest and transparency trumped concerns of protecting individual privacy.
On similar lines, in People’s Bank vs. Right to Information Commission[4] the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the commission to disclose the information pertaining to the expenditure incurred in connection with the celebration of Poson in 2022. The court ruled that the disclosure of a name or the identity of an institution to which the bank had directed payments from public funds does not, in itself, constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy of the third party and such information relates directly to the use of public resources, which is inherently subject to public scrutiny and hence should be disclosed.
These decisions of the commission, affirmed by the Court of Appeal, evidence that time and again the focus has been on disclosing information in the larger public interest. In Sri Lanka Ports Authority vs. A.A.M. Rifthi Ali[5] the commission rejected the prescribing of fees for information under the RTI in US dollars instead of the prescribed Sri Lankan rupees, a decision that was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. Despite these wins and positive developments, several challenges persist and these must be addressed as a matter of priority. In a media release in November 2025, the RTI Commission raised concerns regarding its staffing and budgetary allocation.
Funding concerns
The media release states that “No dedicated Fund has been allowed to be operated. The RTIC has been functioning with a skeleton staff, one legal officer and two legal assistants (later increased to three) to handle an increasing case load of appeals…” This is a grave concern and needs to be addressed immediately. Similarly, other related concerns cannot be ignored. To enable recruitment a request has to be routed through the Ministry assigned to the subject of mass media. The media statement highlights “In forwarding the RTIC’s requests for staff to the Ministry of Finance, which the RTIC is compelled to do through the nodal agency, the process has been inexplicably delayed, in one instance by eight months.” Also, there is no independent line item in the budgetary allocation for the commission. The lack of a specified budget allocation has repeatedly caused much concern and distress in the functioning of the commission.
A broader institutional crisis
The concerns raised in the commission’s media statement reflect a larger institutional crisis. Previously, when there was a delay in the appointment of a chair for the commission civil society groups, legal bodies and media organizations highlighted legal staffing shortages and operational bottlenecks that had left the commission functioning at far less than full capacity. The leadership gaps that persisted due to vacancies in the commission’s leadership impaired its decision making and its ability to adjudicate appeals promptly. It has now been brought to light that one of the commissioners has tendered their resignation. Once the vacancy occurs, the process of filling the vacancy should not be delayed. It is also imperative that the statutory procedure for appointing a commissioner be strictly followed with nominations submitted to the Constitutional Council to ensure an independent system of checks and balances prior to appointment by the president.
Media groups have also highlighted the erosion of institutional integrity, urging the government to ensure adherence to statutory provisions such as Sections 13 and 16 of the RTI Act that safeguard recruitment autonomy and financial independence.
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has pointed out how understaffing and funding issues directly undermine the commission’s statutory mandate and threaten the fulfilment of the public’s right to know.
These recurring calls reflect a growing consensus that the current trajectory, if unaddressed, risks not only stalling the progress of transparency but also eroding public trust in democratic institutions.
There have been reports indicating plans to amend the RTI Act. Any proposed amendment should not undermine the fundamental right to information guaranteed under Article 14A of the constitution. Attention should be drawn to the fact that the RTI Act was passed after extensive consultations at many levels and any endeavor to amend the same should be accompanied by wide stakeholder consultations.[6]
Why strengthening RTI matters now
RTI is more than a legal mechanism; it is a foundation of accountable governance and a bedrock for transparency. When citizens can access information about policies, public expenditures and administrative decisions, they are empowered to hold the state accountable for actions and decisions, participate meaningfully in democratic processes, combat corruption and bring in better transparency and strengthen civic engagement and public trust in governance.
For Sri Lanka, revitalizing the RTI Commission is not only an administrative priority but also an imperative. The right to know furthers democratic values, bolsters institutional integrity and ensures that citizens from all walks of life are benefited.
It is hoped that the issues of funding, appointing support staff and compliance with statutory requirements under the RTI Act are considered as matters of priority and addressed effectively.
[1] Litro Gas Lanka Limited & Litro Gas Terminal Lanka (Private) Limited, Vs. W.K.S. Karunarathne CA/RTI/REV/08/2022; CA Minute, 12/02/2024; The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and refused to grant leave to appeal against this decision. Bank of Ceylon, Vs Right to Information Commission CA/RTI/REV/05/2022; CA Minute, 12/02/2024. The other judgements of the of the Court of Appeal- People’s Bank Vs. Right to Information Commission CA/RTI/REV/05/2021; CA Minute, 26/11/2024; Sri Lanka Ports Authority Vs. AAM Rifthi Ali CA/RTI/07/2022; CA Minute, 10/05/2024; The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka Vs. Lionel Dissanayake CA/RTI/04/2022; CA Minute, 06/03/2025.
[2] CA/RTI/REV/08/2022; CA Minute, 12/02/2024
[3] CA/RTI/REV/05/2022; CA Minute, 12/02/2024
[4] CA/RTI/REV/05/2021; CA Minute, 26/11/2024
[5] CA/RTI/07/2022; CA Minute, 10/05/2024
[6] Ashwini Natesan and Chiranthi Rajapakse “Data Governance Framework: Sri Lanka”, LIRNEasia, November 2025.
