Court of Appeal Case No. CA/RTI/0002/2023
Judgment delivered on 03.07.2025
Presiding: Dr. Sumudu Premachandra J. and R. Gurusinghe J

Background:

This appeal arose from a decision by the Right to Information Commission (RTIC) directing Sri Lanka Telecom PLC (SLT)—a public authority and a publicly listed company—to disclose a breakdown of legal fees it incurred in relation to specific RTI appeals filed against it.

The initial RTI request, filed by C.J. Wijayawardhana on 30.11.2018, sought itemized legal costs, including consultation fees, written submission fees, counsel fees for appearances before RTIC, and any other related costs. SLT refused the request under Section 5(1)(f) of the Right to Information Act No. 12 of 2016, invoking legal professional privilege and fiduciary confidentiality.

Key Legal Issues:
1. Does the disclosure of legal fees infringe on professional privilege or privacy under Section 5(1)(f) or other RTI Act exemptions?
2. Is there sufficient public interest to override such exemptions under Section 5(4)?
3. Do the RTIC and Courts have the authority to compel disclosure despite claimed exemptions?

Petitioner’s (SLT’s) Arguments:
• Disclosure of individual legal fees infringes privacy rights of legal professionals and could lead to reputational harm.
• Such information is protected under Sections 5(1)(a), (f), and (g) of the RTI Act and Articles 12(1), 14A(2), and 28(e) of the Constitution.
• SLT, being listed on the Colombo Stock Exchange, is already subject to robust transparency rules and has disclosed aggregate fees in its annual reports.
• Disclosure would violate professional confidentiality and fiduciary duty, undermining legal ethics and privacy.

Respondents’ Arguments:
• SLT is a public authority under Section 11 of the RTI Act and expends public funds, which must be open to public scrutiny.
• The request did not seek names of legal counsel, only the nature and amount of fees.
• There was no infringement of privacy or legal privilege, and the public interest in transparency outweighs the alleged harm.

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis:
1. Public Accountability:
The court reaffirmed that public authorities—especially those using public funds—are held to higher standards of transparency and accountability, even if listed on the stock exchange.

2. RTI vs. Privacy Conflict:
While the right to privacy is acknowledged under Personal Data Protection Act No. 9 of 2022, the RTI Act prioritizes disclosure unless exemptions under Section 5(1) are proven and outweighed by public interest per Section 5(4).

3. No Personal or Privileged Information Sought:
The request only sought fee breakdowns and not the identities of individual lawyers, thereby not infringing professional confidentiality or any legally protected fiduciary information.

4. Public Interest Justification:
The court highlighted that public interest in the use of public funds—especially for legal expenses defending RTI cases—trumps the general claim of confidentiality.

5. Precedent and Comparative Jurisprudence:
Cited Indian and local jurisprudence (e.g., Chamara Sampath v. Neil Iddawala, D. Sarathchandra v. People’s Bank, Sunila Abeysekera v. Ariya Rubasinghe) support disclosure when public funds are involved, unless exceptionally grave privacy risks are demonstrated.

6. Failure to Justify Exemption:
SLT failed to show that any real or specific harm would result from the disclosure. Mere reliance on abstract privacy or reputational concerns was insufficient.

Conclusion:
• The Right to Information Commission’s decision to compel disclosure was upheld.
• The Court dismissed the appeal with costs, affirming the principle that transparency in the use of public funds outweighs generic confidentiality claims.

Key Takeaways:
• Public authorities must disclose financial information, including legal fees, unless they can clearly demonstrate a specific exemption under Section 5(1) and prove that harm outweighs public interest.
• Transparency is the rule, and refusal is the exception under the Sri Lankan RTI regime.
• Courts will narrowly construe RTI exemptions and uphold public interest in fiscal accountability, particularly when legal fees are funded by public resources.