Landmark Ruling on Private Broadcasters, Media Responsibility and Right to Information

By
Sri Lanka Brief
-
0
90

Compiled by Sunanda Deshapriya
Sri Lanka Brief | Update
Media Responsibility, Public Media and the Right to Information
(Based on Court of Appeal Judgment CA/RTI 0003/2024, 5 March 2026)

  1.  Landmark ruling on private broadcasters and RTI: The Court of Appeal has delivered a significant judgment affirming that private television broadcasters operating under government licences can fall within the definition of a “public authority” under Section 43(g) of the Right to Information Act No. 12 of 2016.
  2. Case background: The case arose from an RTI request made by a citizen seeking information from Hiru TV regarding the sources and verification of a news report that falsely claimed a murder suspect had confessed.
  3. RTI Commission decision upheld: The Court upheld the decision of the Right to Information Commission, rejecting the broadcaster’s appeal and affirming its obligation to disclose limited, non-sensitive information.
  4. RTI recognised as a constitutional right: The judgment reaffirms that the Right to Information is guaranteed under Article 14A of the Constitution and must be interpreted broadly to promote transparency and accountability.
  5. Private media can perform public functions: The Court held that private broadcasters perform a public function because they operate using public airwaves licensed by the State, bringing them within the RTI framework.
  6. Airwaves recognised as public property: Relying on Sri Lankan and comparative jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that airwaves are public property held in trust by the State for the benefit of the public.
  7. Licence conditions impose public duties: Broadcasting licences issued under the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation Act carry statutory obligations, including accuracy, impartiality, and service to the public interest.
  8. Media freedom is not absolute: While affirming media freedom, the Court stressed that it must be exercised responsibly and within the boundaries set by law, especially where individual rights are affected.
  9. Accuracy and verification are legal duties: The Court emphasised that broadcasters have a legal duty to verify news content and ensure accuracy, particularly in crime reporting that affects reputations.
  10. False reporting undermines public trust: Publishing unverified or inaccurate information was recognised as harmful, capable of causing serious reputational damage and eroding public confidence in the media.
  11. Fiduciary relationship claim rejected: The Court rejected the broadcaster’s attempt to invoke Section 5(g) of the RTI Act, finding no fiduciary relationship between the broadcaster and its provincial news agents.
  12. Public interest overrides secrecy: The judgment confirms that exemptions under the RTI Act must be narrowly interpreted and that public interest can override claims of confidentiality.
  13. Right of viewers and listeners prioritised: Citing earlier Supreme Court rulings, the Court reaffirmed that the rights of viewers and listeners are paramount, not the commercial interests of broadcasters.
  14. Editors and verification processes not private: The Court ruled that information about editorial verification and responsible editors is neither private nor sensitive and can be disclosed under RTI.
  15. Media accountability strengthened: The decision strengthens mechanisms to hold private media accountable without undermining legitimate journalistic protections such as source confidentiality.
  16. Disinformation and misinformation addressed: The judgment recognises the growing harm caused by misinformation and disinformation, particularly against vulnerable individuals unable to defend themselves.
  17. Balance between privacy and public interest: The Court carefully balanced the right to privacy of suspects with the public’s right to accurate information, stressing restraint in pre‑trial reporting.
  18. RTI is the rule, refusal the exception: Reaffirming earlier precedent, the Court stated that disclosure is the rule under the RTI Act, while refusal must be clearly justified under Section 5.
  19. Private media does not exempt from constitutional values: The ruling confirms that private media entities are not beyond constitutional scrutiny when performing functions that affect democratic participation.
  20. A precedent-setting judgment: This decision marks a critical step in strengthening transparency, responsible journalism, and the public’s right to know, reinforcing democratic accountability in Sri Lanka’s media landscape.

For an extended version pl see here:SLB Update March 26 Court judgement – Media freedom, Public Media and RTI (Expended version)

Read the Judgement: RTI-0003-24 PROOF READ