Court of Appeal affirms RTI order against People’s Bank on Devalaya accounts

• Rules temple funds not private; subject to public scrutiny
• Finds no merit in appeal citing privacy and Banking Act secrecy

The Court of Appeal has affirmed a determination of the Right to Information (RTI) Commission directing People’s Bank to disclose information relating to two bank accounts maintained by the Devinuwara Uthpalawanna Sri Vishnu Maha Devalaya, holding that the information cannot be treated as private.

The Court also held that the RTI Commission as a quasi-judicial institution, is not required to defend its own decisions in the Appeal Court, and not required to be made a Respondent in appeals against its decisions.

Delivering judgment on 2 April, the bench comprising Justices R. Gurusinghe and Dr. Sumudu Premachandra held that there was no merit in the grounds of appeal and affirmed the RTI Commission’s order dated 12 December 2024. The appeal was dismissed without costs. 

The Court held that the refusal to disclose the information amounted to a “frustration of legislative intent regarding transparency and accountability,” noting that the right to be informed is guaranteed under Article 14A of the Constitution. 

At the centre of the ruling was the Court’s finding that the information sought does not amount to private or personal financial data. The Court stated that the information relates to “a general account of Devinuwara Uthpalawanna Sri Vishnu Maha Devalaya” and “cannot be treated as private transactions of the Basnayake Nilame.” 

The Court further held that under the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance, the Basnayake Nilame functions as a trustee and holds a public trust for devotees. Accordingly, funds of the Devalaya, including donations and income from property, cannot be treated as private funds and are subject to public scrutiny. 

Rejecting the reliance placed on the Banking Act, the Court held that the duty of secrecy under Section 77(1) does not provide blanket protection from disclosure. It emphasised that Section 4 of the RTI Act establishes its supremacy over any conflicting written law. 

The bank had contended that the information constituted personal information of a third party under Section 5(1)(a) of the RTI Act and that disclosure would violate a fiduciary duty and cause “grave and irreparable loss.” 

However, the Court held that such exemptions were not applicable in this case, noting that the information did not involve private or sensitive personal data. It further held that the Devinuwara Devalaya cannot be treated as a private third party in this context, given the statutory framework governing temple property and trusteeship. 

The Court also rejected a preliminary objection that the RTI Commission had not been named as a party, holding that the Commission is not a necessary party in such appeals and does not defend its own decisions. 

The case arose from a February 2024 RTI request by Ramakrishna Thenabadu seeking details of two bank accounts held by the Devinuwara Uthpalawanna Sri Vishnu Maha Devalaya.

The bank’s Information Officer and Designated Officer refused the request on the basis that it related to personal information of a third party. The Basnayake Nilame of the Devalaya also objected to disclosure. 

Following the refusal, the applicant appealed to the RTI Commission, which after hearings and written submissions directed the bank to disclose the information by order dated 12 December 2024. 

The bank appealed to the Court of Appeal seeking to set aside that determination, arguing that the Commission had failed to recognise the Devalaya as a third party and had not established a public interest overriding privacy.

The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments and affirmed the Commission’s order, holding that the nature of the funds, and not the status of the bank, determines whether disclosure is required.