The Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka has ruled that examination candidates have the right to access their answer scripts and marks under the Right to Information Act.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed a petition filed by the Open University of Sri Lanka seeking to prevent the release of such information.
The ruling was delivered on 8 May 2026 by Appeal Court Judges R. Gurusinghe and Dr. Sumudu Premachandra.
The case stemmed from a request made by R.A. Janaka Roshan Ranasinghe seeking access to the answer scripts and marks of his daughter, who had sat for the Open University’s LLB entrance examination held on 8 January 2023.
The university had initially rejected the request, claiming that disclosing examination-related information could undermine the confidentiality and credibility of the examination process.
However, the Right to Information Commission later directed the university to release the information, prompting the institution to challenge the decision before the Appeal Court.
In the judgment, Judge Dr. Sumudu Premachandra stated that there was no valid reason to deny an examination candidate access to their own answer scripts or the manner in which they had been evaluated.
“I see no reason to refuse a request made by an examination candidate to inspect answer scripts written by themselves and the manner in which marks have been awarded,” the judgment stated.
The Court further emphasised that transparency and accountability were fundamental principles protected under Article 14A of the Constitution and the Right to Information Act.
Highlighting the importance of transparency in public institutions, the judgment also stated that “higher education institutions cannot play hide and seek.”
The bench further ruled that the RTI Act prevailed over university by-laws and that statutory law superseded institutional regulations.
While noting that the identities of examiners could still remain confidential, the Court cited previous judgments from Sri Lanka and India affirming the right of candidates to inspect answer scripts containing their marks.
Observing that the petitioners had failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of revisionary powers, the Court ultimately dismissed the petition filed by the university.
