By The Pulseline News Desk
A landmark Court of Appeal ruling has affirmed that institutions created by Parliament cannot claim complete privacy from public scrutiny simply because they operate without State funding. The decision involving the Chartered Institute of Personnel Management (CIPM) could reshape how statutory bodies understand transparency, accountability and the public’s right to know.
For years, the Right to Information (RTI) Act in Sri Lanka has largely been associated with Government ministries, departments and publicly funded institutions. A recent judgment by the Court of Appeal has now pushed the conversation beyond traditional State structures, holding that even privately managed organisations may come within the reach of the RTI framework when they owe their existence to an Act of Parliament.
The ruling came in a case involving the CIPM, a professional body established under Law No. 24 of 1976 (as amended). The Institute had argued that it should not be treated as a “public authority” because it receives no Government funding, employs no public officers and functions as a private member association.
The Court of Appeal had disagreed.
By dismissing CIPM’s challenge against a 2024 order of the RTI Commission, the Court had confirmed that statutory recognition itself carries a level of public responsibility. The judgment has now placed a wider category of institutions — including professional bodies and organisations established through legislation — under renewed scrutiny regarding their obligations to provide information.
The question at the heart of the case
The dispute had begun when A.P. Pandithage had requested information relating to a disciplinary process conducted by CIPM.
The Institute had declined to release the information, raising a preliminary objection: a private association maintained without Government involvement, even if created by Parliament, should not fall under the RTI Act.
The argument had appeared to rest on a conventional understanding of “public authority” — that public accountability should follow public money or direct State control.
But the RTI Commission had taken a broader view.
It had found that Section 43(b) of the RTI Act does not limit public authorities only to Government-funded entities. Instead, it expressly includes “any body or office created or established by or under the Constitution, any written law…”
The Commission had held that reading additional restrictions into the provision would narrow the law beyond what Parliament intended.
Parliamentary recognition comes with responsibility
In upholding the Commission’s decision, the Court of Appeal had focused on the significance of being created by legislation.
Justice Mahen Gopallawa, with Justice Mayadunne Corea agreeing, had noted that incorporation through an Act of Parliament represents the highest form of recognition available to a corporate body.
“Incorporation by an Act of Parliament denotes and confers the imprimatur of Parliament regarding its significance, powers and functions of such institution.”
The Court had observed that institutions granted statutory status are not ordinary private associations. Their powers, functions and existence are derived from legislation, making transparency and accountability legitimate expectations.
The judgment had emphasised that requiring such institutions to operate openly is not an unreasonable burden but is consistent with the purpose of the RTI regime.
Rejecting the ‘floodgates’ concern
CIPM had argued that a broad interpretation of Section 43(b) could create a situation where countless private organisations become subject to RTI requests.
The Court had rejected this concern, describing the Commission’s approach as rational and reasonable.
The judgment had recognised that the determination of whether an institution qualifies as a public authority depends on factors including:
- whether the institution was created by statute; and
- the nature and public significance of its activities.
The Court had held that these considerations provide a practical framework rather than an automatic expansion of RTI coverage to every private organisation.
A stronger meaning for RTI
The case had also highlighted the constitutional importance of access to information.
The RTI Commission had previously stressed that it would fail in its statutory duty if it adopted a narrow interpretation that restricted access to information. It had noted that the RTI Act was enacted to give effect to the constitutional right recognised under Article 14A.
The Court of Appeal had agreed that the Commission’s interpretation was consistent with previous judicial approaches to the RTI Act.
The message emerging from the judgment is clear: the right to information is not limited only to institutions funded by taxpayers. Where Parliament has created an organisation and entrusted it with statutory powers and responsibilities, transparency may become part of that institution’s obligation.
The language of the law
Another important aspect of the case was the dispute over the Sinhala and English versions of Section 43(b).
CIPM had argued that the English wording — particularly the phrase “any body or office” — did not accurately reflect the Sinhala text and should be interpreted more narrowly.
The Court had rejected that argument, stating that courts cannot rewrite legislation by replacing words chosen by Parliament.
Justice Gopallawa had observed that there was no requirement for legislation to be translated through a strict word-for-word approach and that the statutory language must be interpreted as enacted.
What the judgment means
The decision extends beyond one professional institute.
Sri Lanka has several bodies created through Acts of Parliament that operate independently from direct Government administration. Many of these institutions manage professional standards, disciplinary procedures, examinations, registrations or regulatory functions.
The ruling signals that statutory creation is not merely a legal formality. It carries expectations of openness, especially where an institution performs functions that affect members of the public or a wider professional community.
For citizens seeking information, the judgment represents a broader understanding of accountability.
For statutory bodies, it serves as a reminder that independence from Government does not necessarily mean freedom from public oversight.
At its core, the judgment reinforces a central principle of the RTI framework: institutions that hold public significance must also accept public accountability.
Leave a comment