Sri Lanka’s Court of Appeal has ruled that funds held by Devalayas are not private accounts and must be subject to public scrutiny, reinforcing the importance of transparency and accountability in the administration of religious institutions.
The ruling came in response to an appeal filed by People’s Bank against a directive issued by the Right to Information (RTI) Commission. The Commission had instructed the bank to disclose details of two accounts maintained by the Devinuwara Uthpalawanna Sri Vishnu Maha Dewalaya.
The information request was made in February 2024 by Ramakrishna Thenabadu, a former Kapurala of the Devalaya. However, both the bank’s Information Officer and Designated Officer رفض the request, arguing that the details constituted personal information belonging to a third party. This position was supported by the Basnayake Nilame of the Devalaya, who formally objected to the release of the information.
Following the refusal, Thenabadu appealed to the RTI Commission. After hearings, the Commission ruled on December 12, 2024, that the requested information should be disclosed. People’s Bank subsequently challenged this decision before the Court of Appeal, claiming that the Commission had erred in law by failing to properly identify the Devalaya as a “third party” under the RTI Act and by not establishing sufficient public interest to justify disclosure.
The bank also argued that complying with the directive would violate the Banking Act, which imposes a duty of confidentiality between banks and their customers, and warned that disclosure could cause serious and irreparable harm.
However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the RTI Commission’s determination. In the judgment, Justice Sumudu Premachandra, with Justice R. Gurusinghe concurring, found no grounds to overturn the Commission’s decision.
The Court noted that Section 4 of the RTI Act takes precedence over conflicting laws, including provisions of the Banking Act. It further highlighted that the right to information is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14A of the Constitution.
Justice Premachandra also pointed out that under the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance, the Basnayake Nilame serves as a trustee responsible for managing temple assets, income, and upkeep. In light of growing concerns about the misuse of such funds, the Court stressed that transparency must be upheld and cannot be undermined by withholding information.
Counsel Kapila Liyanagamage, instructed by Deepika Pramadasa, appeared for the public authority, while Counsel Reshaal Serasinghe, with Shiara Sellamuthu, represented the appellant.
Leave a comment