Sri Lanka’s Court of Appeal has dismissed a request by the Electronic Broadcasters’ Association to intervene in a major case involving Asian Media Network’s classification as a public authority under the Right to Information Act. The ruling marks a significant development in media transparency and regulation, potentially impacting all private broadcasters operating on state-granted frequencies.
The Court of Appeal has rejected the application submitted by the Lanka Broadcasters’ Association, also known as the Electronic Broadcasters’ Association, seeking to intervene in an appeal filed by Asian Media Network against the Right to Information Commission’s ruling.
The appeal challenges the RTI Commission’s decision to designate Asian Media Network as a public authority under the Right to Information Act. In an effort to support the broadcaster, the association filed a motion asserting that it represents several television and radio licensees, including Hiru TV, which is owned by Asian Media Network.
According to the petitioner, the RTI Commission’s ruling affects all its members because it claims that operating under a frequency license does not convert a private broadcaster into a public authority. The association argued that radio frequencies, while public property, are merely licensed to private broadcasters for commercial use, and that alone does not equate to delivering a public service under the RTI Act.
They further argued that all members of the association follow identical licensing frameworks and, if the Commission’s ruling stands, it could subject a wide range of private broadcasters to the same RTI obligations, with far-reaching and detrimental implications.
The association also claimed that the lack of an opportunity to be heard in court severely compromises the rights and interests of its members, which prompted the request to intervene.
However, the Court of Appeal held that the citizen who initially requested the information from Asian Media Network had no legal provision under the 1990 Appeal Procedure Rules to include third parties. The court determined that the association lacked a direct and substantial interest in the case and was not a necessary party.
Furthermore, the court pointed out that since the RTI Commission was not an appellant, and the petitioner was not part of the original RTI hearing, it had no legal standing to appear or appeal. Under Sri Lanka’s Constitution, only the original parties involved in a matter have the right to appeal.
The verdict reinforces the principle that access to judicial appeal under the RTI framework is limited to parties directly involved in the initial commission proceedings, potentially setting precedent for future challenges by private entities seeking exemption from RTI obligations.
