Title: The Open University of Sri Lanka and others vs The Right to Information Commission and others
Case number: CA RTI 01/2024
Decided on: 2026-May-08
Before: Justice R. Gurusinghe, Justice Dr. Sumudu Premachandra
Introduction – Students right to access answer scripts
In a significant decision on transparency and students’ rights, the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka reaffirmed that public universities cannot refuse access to answer scripts merely by claiming confidentiality.
The case, The Open University of Sri Lanka v. Right to Information Commission and Others, dealt with an important question increasingly raised in modern education systems: does a student have the right to see how their examination paper was evaluated?
The judgment, delivered on 8th May 2026, arose from a dispute concerning the LLB Selection Test conducted by the Open University of Sri Lanka. While the University argued that releasing answer scripts could undermine the integrity of examinations, the Court ultimately took the view that transparency and accountability must prevail unless real and substantial harm can be shown.
The decision is now regarded as an important interpretation of the Right to Information Act No. 12 of 2016 and a strong affirmation of the constitutional right to access information under Article 14A of the Constitution.
Facts of the case
The dispute began when R.A. Janaka Roshan Ranasinghe sought access to the answer scripts and marks of his daughter, R.A.D. Sashindya Ranasinghe, who had sat for the Open University’s LLB Selection Test in January 2023.
The request was made under the Right to Information Act. However, the University’s Information Officer and Designated Officer refused to provide the documents. The University relied on Section 5(1)(l) of the RTI Act, which allows a public authority to refuse disclosure if it would harm the integrity of an examination conducted by a higher educational institution.
According to the University, releasing answer scripts and related examination material could compromise confidentiality, expose the structure of the examination process, and create a precedent that would negatively affect future examinations.
Unhappy with this refusal, the applicant appealed to the Right to Information Commission. After considering the matter, the Commission directed the University to release the requested information.
The Open University then filed a revision application before the Court of Appeal seeking to overturn the Commission’s determination.
Issues before the Court
The central issue before the Court was whether a university could legally refuse to disclose a student’s own answer scripts under the RTI Act.
The Court also had to consider whether releasing such information would genuinely harm the integrity of the examination process. In addition, the judges examined whether the University had properly invoked the Court’s revisionary jurisdiction instead of filing a statutory appeal provided under RTI Act itself.
Court’s reasoning
The Court closely examined Section 5(1)(l) of the RTI Act. Justice Dr. Sumudu Premachandra observed that the purpose of the exemption was to protect the integrity of examinations, not to create blanket secrecy around academic evaluations.
Importantly, the Court found no convincing reason why a student should be denied access to her own answer scripts. The judges emphasized that transparency is one of the core objectives of the Right to Information Act and is directly connected to the constitutional guarantee of access to information under Article 14A.
The judgment strongly stated that higher educational institutions should not engage in “hide-and-seek” practices when dealing with students seeking information about their own examinations. If answer scripts have been evaluated fairly and according to a proper marking scheme, disclosure should not threaten institutional integrity.
The Court also noted that the Sinhala version of Section 5(1)(l) suggested that only confidential material directly affecting examination integrity could be withheld. A student’s own answer script did not automatically fall into that category.
In reaching its decision, the Court relied on both local and foreign authorities. It referred to the Sri Lankan case Bank of Ceylon v. Right to Information Commission, where disclosure relating to a competitive examination was permitted in the public interest.
The Court also drew guidance from Indian Supreme Court decisions, particularly CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay. In that case, the Indian Supreme Court held that evaluated answer scripts constitute “information” and that students generally have the right to inspect or obtain copies of their own answer sheets.
At the same time, the Court recognised the need to protect certain confidential aspects of the examination process. For example, the identity of examiners could remain confidential. However, this did not justify withholding the entire answer script from the student concerned.
Another important issue was the University’s decision to file a revision application instead of using the ordinary appeal procedure available under Section 34(1) of the RTI Act.
Relying on several established Sri Lankan authorities, the judges observed that the University had failed to explain why it did not pursue the statutory right of appeal available to it. Since no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated, the Court found no justification to exercise revisionary powers.
Decision
The Court of Appeal dismissed the University’s revision application and upheld the decision of the Right to Information Commission.
The Court held that the University had failed to establish that disclosure of the answer scripts would genuinely harm the integrity of the examination process. It further ruled that university by-laws could not override the provisions of the RTI Act, which takes precedence over inconsistent regulations.
The judges also held that the University had improperly invoked revisionary jurisdiction despite having an adequate statutory remedy by way of appeal.
Significance of the judgment in deciding students right to access answer scripts
This judgment is an important step forward for transparency and accountability within Sri Lanka’s higher education system. It reinforces the idea that students are entitled to know how their academic performance has been assessed, especially where public institutions are involved.
The decision also narrows the scope of the examination-related exemption under the RTI Act. Public authorities cannot refuse disclosure based on vague claims of confidentiality or institutional inconvenience. They must demonstrate actual harm to examination integrity.
Beyond education, the case highlights the growing importance of the constitutional right to information in promoting openness within public institutions. The Court’s reasoning reflects a broader shift toward administrative accountability, fairness, and public trust.
Ultimately, the judgment sends a clear message: transparency strengthens institutions rather than weakens them.