The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision by the Right to Information (RTI) Commission determining that Hiru TV is an institution that falls within the scope of the Right to Information Act.
Delivering the ruling, the Court emphasised that private television media institutions perform an important public function and are therefore responsible not only for profit-making but also for serving the public interest.
The Court further noted that airwaves are a public resource and that private media organisations must utilise them in a manner that ensures accurate reporting. It added that disclosing the editor responsible for a news report does not amount to a restriction on media freedom but instead strengthens the public’s constitutional right to information.
The case arose after a woman identified as M.G.K. Dissanayake sought information regarding a news report broadcast by Hiru TV on 23 August 2023 during its 6.55 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. news bulletins titled “Alawathugoda murder mystery revealed – husband remanded.” The report claimed that her son, who had been arrested on suspicion of murder, had made a confession.
The woman maintained that the report was false and requested that the channel correct it. After receiving no satisfactory response despite several telephone requests, she submitted a formal information request to Hiru TV on 19 September 2023 under the Right to Information Act seeking details related to the news report.
When no response was received, she appealed to the designated officer of the institution and subsequently filed an appeal before the RTI Commission on 29 November 2023.
During the proceedings before the Commission, Hiru TV submitted preliminary objections stating that Asia Broadcasting Corporation Ltd., which operates the channel, is a private company functioning for commercial purposes and therefore does not qualify as a public authority under the RTI Act.
However, after examining the appeal, the RTI Commission ruled on 20 July 2024 that Hiru TV qualifies as a public authority under the Act. The Commission also directed the company’s Group Chief Executive Officer, Vincent Silva, to release certain information requested, including whether the news editor or news director had independently verified the report before it was broadcast and the identities of the news editor and news director responsible for the two news bulletins aired on 23 August 2023.
Hiru TV subsequently filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal challenging the Commission’s ruling. The Electronic Broadcasters’ Forum also sought to intervene in the case, but the Court rejected the request.
The appeal was heard before Court of Appeal Justices R. Gurusinghe and Dr. Sumudu Premachandra. Appearing for Hiru TV were Attorneys Tisath Herath, Thamali Wijekoon, and Manoj Bandara on the instructions of Sudath Perera Associates. Attorneys Suren D. Perera, Hiruni Perera, and Manushika Kure represented the woman who filed the information request.
Delivering the judgment with the concurrence of Justice Gurusinghe, Justice Premachandra dismissed the appeal with costs and affirmed the RTI Commission’s decision.
The Court noted that under Section 5 of the RTI Act, access to information may only be restricted within the specific limitations set out in the law, and that the right to access information is available not only to the individuals directly concerned but to any citizen interested in obtaining such information.
Addressing the argument raised by Hiru TV under Section 5(1)(e) relating to fiduciary relationships, the Court observed that such provisions typically apply to relationships such as those between a bank and a customer or a doctor and a patient. Since the information in question was obtained by the media organisation through its reporters or employees, the Court held that the provision did not apply in this instance.
The Court also observed that Hiru TV operates under licences issued under the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation Act No. 6 of 1982 and regulations of the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission. As such, it is bound by obligations related to public interest and transparency.
Referring to judicial precedents, the Court emphasised that airwaves are not the property of the State or of private entities but are a public resource. It also noted that the right to know has been recognised as part of the freedom of speech.
The Court further stressed that the role of the media is to provide viewers, listeners, readers, and the public with information and opinions that have been verified as truthful and accurate.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed Hiru TV’s appeal, ordered the payment of legal costs, and affirmed the RTI Commission’s ruling that the channel falls under the provisions of the Right to Information Act.
