Title: Sri Lanka Telecom PLC v Right to Information Commission and C. J. Wijayawardhana
Case number: CA/RTI/0002/2023
Decided on: 2025-07-03
Before: Dr. Sumudu Premachandra J.; R. Gurusinghe J.
Introduction
In another important decision strengthening Sri Lanka’s Right to Information regime, the Court of Appeal ruled that legal expenses incurred by public institutions cannot be hidden from public scrutiny merely by claiming privacy or confidentiality.
The case, Sri Lanka Telecom PLC v Right to Information Commission and C. J. Wijayawardhana, arose from an information request seeking a breakdown of legal costs spent by Sri Lanka Telecom PLC in several proceedings before the Right to Information Commission. The judgment delivered a strong message on transparency, accountability, and the public’s right to know how state-linked institutions spend public funds.
The Court ultimately held that expenditures made by public authorities — especially legal expenses funded through public resources — are matters of legitimate public interest and cannot ordinarily be shielded from disclosure.
Facts of the case
The dispute began when C. J. Wijayawardhana submitted an information request under the Right to Information Act No. 12 of 2016 seeking details of legal costs incurred by Sri Lanka Telecom PLC in several proceedings before the RTI Commission.
The request specifically asked for a breakdown of:
- Legal consultation fees,
- Fees paid for written submissions,
- Fees paid to counsel for appearances before the RTI Commission, and
- other related legal expenses.
Importantly, the applicant did not request the names of lawyers or confidential legal communications. The request was limited to the financial expenditure incurred by the institution.
Sri Lanka Telecom refused to disclose the information, arguing that the requested material involved privacy concerns, confidentiality, and commercially sensitive information protected under the RTI Act.
Following an appeal, the Right to Information Commission directed SLT to disclose the requested information. Challenging that determination, SLT filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal.
Issues before the Court
The main issue before the Court was whether a public institution could refuse to disclose legal expenses incurred using public funds on the basis of privacy, confidentiality, or professional privilege.
The Court also had to determine how the exemptions under Section 5 of the RTI Act should be interpreted when balanced against the broader constitutional right to access information under Article 14A of the Constitution.
Another important question was whether transparency relating to public expenditure outweighed any alleged confidentiality concerns raised by the Petitioner.
Court’s reasoning
The Court adopted a strongly pro-transparency approach in interpreting the RTI Act. Justice Dr. Sumudu Premachandra emphasized that the central purpose of the legislation is to promote openness, accountability, and good governance within public institutions.
The judgment repeatedly stressed that disclosure is the rule under the RTI Act, while refusal is intended to remain the exception.
The Court observed that public authorities bear the burden of proving why requested information falls within a statutory exemption. Mere assertions of confidentiality are insufficient. Instead, the institution must demonstrate actual harm arising from disclosure and establish that such harm outweighs the public interest in transparency.
A key aspect of the judgment was the Court’s rejection of the argument that legal expenses are inherently confidential. The judges noted that the applicant had not requested privileged communications between lawyers and clients, legal advice, or litigation strategy. What was sought was only a financial breakdown of public expenditure.
The Court held that legal fees paid by a public institution using public resources are matters directly connected to public accountability. Since the expenditure ultimately involves public funds, citizens are entitled to know how such money is spent.
Significantly, the Court pointed out that Sri Lanka Telecom itself had already disclosed aggregate legal expenses in its annual reports. In those circumstances, the judges questioned why a detailed breakdown could not also be disclosed.
The Court further observed that legal practitioners are already subject to financial regulation, taxation laws, and professional accounting obligations. Therefore, disclosure of legal fee payments did not amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
In support of its reasoning, the Court referred extensively to comparative constitutional jurisprudence and earlier Sri Lankan authorities on freedom of information and transparency.
The judges relied on international decisions emphasizing that the right to receive information is an essential part of democratic governance. Particular reference was made to cases from the United States, Europe, and India recognizing that transparency is necessary to combat corruption and maintain public confidence in institutions.
The Court also relied on the earlier Sri Lankan decision in D. Sarathchandra v. People’s Bank, where it had been held that disclosure relating to payments made from public funds generally serves the public interest and should not be withheld unless serious privacy concerns are clearly established.
Importantly, the Court emphasized that the RTI Act itself prioritizes disclosure, particularly in matters involving accountability and the use of public money. Even where exemptions may technically apply, disclosure may still be required if the larger public interest justifies it.
Decision
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal filed by Sri Lanka Telecom PLC and affirmed the decision of the Right to Information Commission.
The Court held that the Petitioner had failed to establish any valid exemption under Section 5 of the RTI Act. It further held that disclosure of legal expenditure did not violate privacy rights, professional privilege, or commercial confidentiality.
Accordingly, the Court ordered that the requested information relating to the breakdown of legal fees and related costs be disclosed.
Costs were awarded against the Petitioner.
Significance of the Judgment
This judgment is another major step in strengthening Sri Lanka’s culture of transparency and public accountability. The Court made it clear that institutions using public resources cannot avoid scrutiny by broadly invoking confidentiality or privacy.
The ruling is particularly important because it confirms that legal expenses paid from public funds are subject to public oversight. Citizens have a legitimate interest in understanding how state institutions spend money on litigation and legal representation.
More broadly, the decision reinforces the principle that the Right to Information Act must be interpreted in favour of maximum disclosure. Exemptions are to be narrowly construed, and