Right of Reply; Right to Information Commission

In reference to the news report in your newspaper dated 11th of November 2025 with the heading “RTI Commission failed to address 308 requests for information last year”   

I have been directed by the TRI Commission of Sri Lanka to clarify a wrongly translated English version of a response sent in Sinhala by the Right to Information Commission on 15th October 2025 to the Ministry of Health and Mass Media regarding a Parliamentary question asked by Opposition MP Ajith P. Perera. It is a matter of grave concern that this wrong English translation has been circulated and reported in the media.   

The said English translation wrongly stated that the Right to Information Commission has ‘failed to attend’ to 308 ‘information requests’ from 1st January to 30th September 2025. In clarification, the Commission does not attend to ‘information requests’; its task is to hear appeals filed to the Commission under the Right to Information Act, No. 12 of 2016. More seriously, the number of 308 ‘adjourned appeals’ out of 1306 appeals received by the Commission during that period has been wrongly reported as ‘failed to attend’.   

TO further clarify the term ‘adjourned’ this does not mean “fail to attend to” appeals. Adjournment of an appeal may occur on various grounds including the request of parties, legal complexity of the subject matter etc. similar errors arise the claim that the Commission has “failed to attend to 112 requests” in 2024 and that “unattended requests” have increased in 2025. These are ‘adjourned appeals’ in regard to which several have already been heard and concluded as to this date (i.e. November 2025).   

No appeals are ‘unattended’ and that to report as such is a serious misrepresentation The Commission has handed down final decisions and concluded appeals in 1157 appeals (out of 1306) from 1st January to 30th September 2025. It has concluded 1837 appeals out of 1852 appeals in 2024 despite only 1 legal officer and three assistants supporting the Commission.   

Additionally the reference in that news report to appeals lodged to the Commission in 2025 being ‘reduced’ to 1157 appeals (as compared to 1837 appeals in 2024) is even more misleading as this date is only up to 30th September 2025.   

What is even more concerning is the statement in the said news report that “total funds allocated to the Right to Information Commission have been reduced in the later stages.” What is stated in the said news item is not the case. There has been no reduction of the fund allocation in the Commission thought serious staff constraints affect the functioning of the body.   

Similarly other inaccuracies are evidenced in the monetary allocations stated in regard to the previous year including a reference to the year ‘2028’ which clearly shows the highly negligent nature of reporting. Please note that the monetary allocation referred to in the response of the Ministry of Health and Mass Media to the parliamentary questions by Opposition MP Ajith P. Perera relate to the expenditure by the Ministry of Health and Mass Media and not in relation to the budgetary allocation in the Right to Information Commission.   

I have been instructed by the RTI Commission to point out the grave consequences in misreporting the budgetary allocation of the Commission in this manner.   

In accordance with the right to reply policy followed by your newspaper, it is kindly requested that this response by the Right to Information Commission is carried with the same prominence that is given to the initial news item.   

K.D.S. Ruwanchandra   

Director General   

Right to Information Commission