Wednesday Jul 15, 2026
Wednesday Jul 15, 2026
Tuesday, 14 July 2026 06:03 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
The Court of Appeal has affirmed that statutory bodies established under written law fall within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, dismissing a writ application by the Chartered Institute of Personnel Management (CIPM) challenging an RTI Commission determination that it is a “public authority” under the law.
In a judgment delivered on 10 July, a bench comprising Justices Mahen Gopallawa and Mayadunne Corea dismissed the CIPM’s application seeking to quash the RTI Commission’s August 2024 ruling that the institute falls within the definition of a public authority under Section 43(b) of the RTI Act.
The case arose after a former Chartered Fellow Member sought information relating to the termination of his membership under the RTI Act. The CIPM declined to provide the information, contending that it was not a public authority subject to the Act. The RTI Commission rejected that position, holding that the institute, having been established by statute, falls within the definition of a public authority under Section 43(b), notwithstanding its finding that Sections 43(j) and 43(k) were inapplicable.
Before the Court of Appeal, the CIPM argued that differences between the Sinhala and English texts of Section 43(b) meant the provision applied only to “Boards” or “Offices” established under written law and not to institutions such as the CIPM. It also contended that having been found not to fall within Sections 43(j) and 43(k), which relate to certain educational and professional institutions, it should likewise fall outside the broader definition of a public authority.
The Court rejected those submissions, holding that the plain language of Section 43(b) covers “any body or office” created or established by or under written law and that there was no basis for substituting or narrowing the statutory language as urged by the petitioner.
The judgement also endorsed the RTI Commission’s conclusion that adopting the restrictive interpretation advanced by the CIPM would produce an absurd result by unduly limiting the scope of the RTI Act. The Court held that the Commission’s interpretation was neither ultra vires, irrational nor unreasonable, and was consistent with Parliament’s objective of fostering transparency and accountability through the RTI regime.
Justice Gopallawa further observed that incorporation by an Act of Parliament confers Parliament’s imprimatur on an institution and that it is reasonable to expect such bodies to conduct their affairs transparently and remain accountable for their actions.
While dismissing the application on its merits, the Court also upheld a preliminary objection that the CIPM had failed to cite the information requester as a necessary party when instituting the proceedings, although it rejected a separate objection that the institute ought to have pursued an alternative statutory remedy before invoking the writ jurisdiction.
The judgment follows earlier Court of Appeal decisions emphasising that the RTI Act should be interpreted in a manner that advances Parliament’s objective of promoting transparency, accountability and good governance.
