Court dismisses People’s Bank appeal on RTI disclosure

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal filed by People’s Bank, affirming a directive of the Right to Information Commission (RTIC) requiring the bank to release information sought by a customer under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, subject to redaction where necessary. The Court held that the information requested did not fall within the exemptions under the Act and could not be lawfully denied.

The judgment was delivered on 20 January by a Bench comprising R. Gurusinghe and Dr. S. Premachandra, dismissing the appeal filed by People’s Bank against a decision of the RTIC dated 15 December 2022.

The case arose from a request made by a citizen, who was also a customer of People’s Bank and the managing partner of a partnership, M.H.B. De Silva and Company. He sought copies of internal audit or inquiry reports relating to the partnership’s accounts, ledger accounts for the relevant partnership accounts, and ledger details of a suspense account, covering the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2019.

People’s Bank, acting as the public authority, initially refused to disclose parts of the requested information, citing exemptions under Sections 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(g) of the RTI Act, on the basis that the documents were internal, confidential, and contained third-party information. While some ledger information was provided, the bank declined to release audit or inquiry reports and certain account details.

The requester appealed to the RTIC, which, following an inquiry, directed the bank to release the requested information, permitting redaction of third-party details if necessary. People’s Bank then appealed to the Court of Appeal, raising multiple grounds, including alleged procedural impropriety, violation of third-party rights, breach of fiduciary duties, and misinterpretation of the exemptions under the RTI Act.

In its judgment, the Court rejected the bank’s central argument that the requested information constituted third-party information. The Court noted that the requester was the managing partner of the partnership concerned and that a partnership is not a separate legal entity distinct from its partners. As such, the Court held that the requester could not be treated as a third party in relation to the partnership’s bank accounts.

The Court also observed that if the bank believed disclosure would affect other parties, it should have followed the procedure set out in Section 29 of the RTI Act, which requires inviting representations from third parties. The bank had failed to demonstrate that it had taken such steps.

Addressing the issue of severability, the Court noted that the RTIC had repeatedly asked the bank whether any third-party information could be reasonably severed under Section 6 of the Act and the remaining information disclosed. The bank had not satisfactorily explained why severance was not possible. The Court emphasised that Parliament had enacted Section 6 to ensure partial disclosure where feasible and that statutory provisions should not be rendered meaningless through restrictive interpretation.

The Court further held that the audit or inquiry report sought was not a general or annual audit report of the bank, but a report relating specifically to an inquiry conducted in response to the requester’s complaint concerning the partnership account. It found that disclosure of such information, with redaction if required, would not amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Relying on established principles and prior case law, including decisions emphasising the constitutional right of access to information, the Court concluded that the information sought did not fall within the exemptions under Section 5 of the RTI Act. Accordingly, the appeal filed by People’s Bank was dismissed, and the decision of the RTIC was upheld.