Does Sri Lanka’s RTI Act Apply to Private Companies? The Dialog RTI Order Explained
A private company is not necessarily outside Sri Lanka’s Right to Information Act. In Hashtag Generation v. Dialog Axiata PLC, the RTI Commission determined that Dialog qualifies as a public authority under Section 43(g), specifically for activities covered by its statutory or public function or service under its telecommunications licence.
The Dialog RTI order, delivered on 21 October 2026 in Appeal No. 1043/2022, addresses an important distinction: a company’s private ownership does not, by itself, settle whether it has obligations under the RTI Act.
What prompted the appeal?
Hashtag Generation requested copies of written directions issued by the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka (TRCSL) concerning restrictions on social-media platforms and communications applications during March and April 2022, together with related correspondence exchanged with Dialog.
Dialog declined the request, maintaining that it was not a public authority under the RTI Act and directing the requester to TRCSL.
The preliminary question was therefore whether the Commission had jurisdiction over Dialog—not whether the documents should immediately be released.
Why did the Commission consider Dialog a public authority?
The Commission applied Section 43(g), which extends to private entities performing statutory or public functions or services under qualifying governmental arrangements, including licences.
Its reasoning highlighted four features of Dialog’s operations:
- Statutory licensing: Its telecommunications operations require a licence under Section 17 of the Telecommunications Act.
- Public resources: It uses State-controlled radio-frequency spectrum.
- Public communications: It provides essential communications infrastructure to the public.
- Continuing oversight: Its operations remain subject to regulatory supervision and directions.
The Commission’s approach focused on the nature of the licensed service and its public character, rather than corporate ownership alone.
The Commission found both the statutory and public limbs of Section 43(g) satisfied. It relied on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Asia Broadcasting Corporation v. M.J.K. Dissanayake (the Hiru TV case), and distinguished AIA Insurance Lanka Ltd. v. Right to Information Commission, where the Court of Appeal found no public element in a long-term life insurance business.
Does this bring every licensed private business under RTI?
No. The order does not treat possession of a government licence as sufficient by itself.
The Commission examined the statutory and public character of Dialog’s telecommunications services within their particular regulatory framework. It also emphasised that Section 43(g) limits RTI obligations to activities covered by the relevant statutory or public function or service.
The decision therefore does not create unrestricted access to every aspect of a private company’s business.
Has Dialog been ordered to disclose the documents?
Not by this order. The Commission overruled Dialog’s preliminary jurisdictional objection and directed that the appeal proceed to consideration of disclosure.
Whether the requested records must be released—and whether exemptions under Section 5 of the RTI Act apply—remains a separate question for determination.
The key takeaway
The Dialog RTI order illustrates that private corporate status is not an automatic exclusion from RTI obligations. Where a private entity performs statutory or public functions under a qualifying governmental arrangement, Section 43(g) may apply.
However, three questions must remain distinct: whether the entity falls within the Act, which activities are covered, and whether the particular information is disclosable.
Read the full order: Hashtag Generation v. Dialog Axiata PLC – RTI Appeal No. 1043/2022.
This article summarises the order dated 21 October 2026. Always refer to the original order for its complete reasoning, scope and directions.