Asia Broadcasting Corporation v. M.J.K. Dissanayake: A Landmark Right to Information case law on Media Accountability in Sri Lanka
The decision in Asia Broadcasting Corporation (Pvt) Ltd v. M.J.K. Dissanayake and Others (Court of Appeal, 2026) marks an important development in Sri Lanka’s Right to Information (RTI) jurisprudence. The case addresses a critical question:
Can a private television broadcaster be considered a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act?
The Court of Appeal answered this question in the affirmative, holding that private broadcasters operating under government licenses may fall within the scope of the RTI Act when performing public functions.
This ruling has significant implications for media accountability, transparency, and the public’s right to know.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from a news broadcast aired by Hiru TV, a television channel operated by Asia Broadcasting Corporation (Pvt) Ltd.
The mother of a murder suspect, M.J.K. Dissanayake, filed a request under the Right to Information Act No. 12 of 2016 seeking information about the news report. She specifically requested details regarding:
- The sources used for the report
- The verification process used by the newsroom
- The individuals responsible for verifying the information
The request was made after the broadcaster allegedly reported that the suspect had confessed to the crime, which the applicant claimed was inaccurate and harmful to her son’s reputation.
When the broadcaster refused to disclose the requested information, the matter was brought before the Right to Information Commission, which ruled that the broadcaster was a “public authority” under the RTI Act and ordered partial disclosure of the requested information.
Asia Broadcasting Corporation subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Key Legal Issues
The Court of Appeal was required to determine several important legal questions:
1. Is a private television broadcaster a “public authority” under the RTI Act?
The broadcaster argued that it was a private, profit-oriented company incorporated under the Companies Act and therefore outside the RTI Act’s scope.
However, the Court examined Section 43(g) of the RTI Act, which states that a private entity performing a statutory or public function under a government license or agreement may be considered a public authority, but only in relation to those functions.
The Court held that television broadcasters operate under government-issued licenses and use public airwaves, which are limited public resources. Therefore, their activities involve a public function.
2. Are airwaves public property?
The Court relied on both Sri Lankan and international jurisprudence, including earlier constitutional decisions, which recognize that:
- Airwaves are public property
- The State holds them in trust for the public
- Broadcast media therefore carries public responsibilities
Because private broadcasters use these public resources to disseminate information, they cannot operate entirely outside public accountability mechanisms.
3. Does disclosure violate journalistic confidentiality?
The broadcaster argued that revealing information about the report would violate confidential journalistic sources, which are protected under the fiduciary relationship exemption in Section 5 of the RTI Act.
However, the Court rejected this argument in this case. It held that the specific information requested — such as the identity of editors and news directors responsible for verification — did not involve confidential sources or sensitive information.
Therefore, the exemption could not be applied.
The Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized several principles central to the RTI framework.
The Right to Information as a Fundamental Right
Article 14A of the Constitution guarantees the right of access to information as a fundamental right. The RTI Act was enacted to give practical effect to this constitutional guarantee.
The Court reaffirmed that:
Access to information is the rule, and refusal is the exception.
Media Power Must Be Balanced with Responsibility
The judgment also highlighted the immense influence of the media in shaping public opinion.
While the press plays a crucial role in democracy, it also carries the responsibility to:
- ensure accuracy
- avoid misinformation
- respect individual rights and reputations
The Court noted that misinformation can spread rapidly and significantly harm individuals, particularly when disseminated through powerful media platforms.
Public Interest and Transparency
The Court concluded that disclosure of the requested information would not undermine press freedom. Instead, it would strengthen public trust and transparency in media operations.
In other words, the RTI framework does not seek to control the media but to ensure accountability where public functions are involved.
The Final Decision
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the RTI Commission.
This meant that:
- Asia Broadcasting Corporation could be treated as a public authority under the RTI Act
- The broadcaster was required to disclose certain information related to the news report
- The RTI Commission’s order remained valid.
Why This Case Is Important
This decision is widely regarded as a landmark RTI judgment for several reasons.
1. Expands the Scope of the RTI Act
The ruling confirms that private entities performing public functions may fall within the RTI regime.
2. Clarifies Media Accountability
It establishes that broadcast media using public airwaves must maintain transparency and accountability.
3. Balances Press Freedom and Public Interest
The judgment carefully balances media freedom with the public’s right to information and protection from misinformation.
4. Strengthens the Right to Information Framework
The case reinforces the principle that access to information is fundamental to democratic governance.
Conclusion
The decision in Asia Broadcasting Corporation v. M.J.K. Dissanayake (2026) represents a significant step in the evolution of Sri Lanka’s Right to Information law.
By recognizing that private broadcasters may be subject to RTI obligations when performing public functions, the Court has reinforced the principle that transparency and accountability extend beyond the traditional boundaries of government institutions.
For journalists, lawyers, and policymakers alike, the ruling highlights a critical reality of modern democracy:
the power to inform the public must always be accompanied by responsibility and openness.