Sri Lanka’s Court of Appeal Delivers Landmark Ruling on Students’ Right to Access Exam Scripts
In a landmark judgment delivered last Friday, the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka issued a ruling expected to have far-reaching implications for university students and higher education institutions across the country.
The case centred on the right of students to obtain copies of their own examination answer scripts and the corresponding marking schemes under Sri Lanka’s Right to Information framework.
The dispute arose after a young student, R.A.D. Sashindya Ranasinghe, sat for the Bachelor of Laws (LLB) Entrance Examination conducted by Open University of Sri Lanka on January 8, 2023. Following the release of results, she was informed that she had failed to qualify for admission to the law programme.
Seeking transparency, Ranasinghe submitted a request on July 10, 2023 under the provisions of the Right to Information Commission, asking the university administration to provide her answer scripts and the marking scheme used to evaluate her examination paper.
However, the university’s Information Officer rejected the request in a letter dated October 17, 2023. The university argued that the requested material fell under Section 5(1) of the Right to Information Act, claiming that the documents were confidential in nature and that disclosure could undermine the integrity of examination procedures and institutional processes.
Unwilling to accept the refusal, the student’s father, Janaka Roshan Ranasinghe, appealed to the Right to Information Commission. After hearing the matter, the Commission ruled on December 28, 2023 that the university must release the requested information to the applicants.
The decision triggered a legal challenge by the Open University itself, which filed a revision application before the Court of Appeal seeking to overturn the Commission’s order. The Court’s determination on that application was delivered last Friday.
The judgment, issued in case number RTI/01/2024, was delivered by Court of Appeal Judge Sumudu Premachandra with the concurrence of Judge R. Gurusinghe.
The petition filed by the university named 24 petitioners, including the Vice Chancellor of the Open University. The respondents included the Right to Information Commission, its Chairman and Commissioners, as well as Sashindya Ranasinghe and her father.
In a detailed analysis, the Court extensively discussed the constitutional and statutory foundations of the public’s right to information, including Article 14 of the Constitution, the provisions of the Right to Information Act, judicial precedents decided under the Act, and the obligations imposed on public authorities to disclose information to citizens.
One of the most significant observations appears on page six of the judgment, where the Court stated:
“I do not see any reason to refuse if an examinee requests their own answer script, which they wrote, and how it was marked. If a standard marking scheme were applied, to protect the integrity of the higher institution, it should be revealed.”
The Court ultimately dismissed the revision application filed by the Open University and affirmed the ruling of the Right to Information Commission. As a result, the university is now legally obliged to provide the requested answer scripts and marking scheme.
Legal observers believe the ruling extends beyond a single institution. The judgment is expected to bind not only the Open University but also other state universities and higher educational institutions across Sri Lanka.
The ruling arrives amid growing public criticism over alleged irregularities, favouritism, abuse of authority, and lack of transparency within parts of the higher education sector. Student activists and education reform advocates have long argued that opaque examination systems leave room for manipulation, discrimination, and victimisation.
Critics contend that students in some institutions have been vulnerable to abuses connected to money, political influence, abuse of authority, and even sexual coercion. Allegations frequently surface that some students are unfairly failed while others allegedly benefit from improper advantages.
The Court’s decision is therefore being viewed as a major step toward academic accountability and institutional transparency.
Importantly, the judgment establishes that students can no longer be arbitrarily denied access to their own examination scripts. Some education rights campaigners now argue that the principle should be expanded further — allowing scrutiny not only of one’s own papers but also of suspicious or disputed results where there may be allegations of favouritism or manipulation.
They argue that injustice can occur not only by reducing one student’s marks unfairly, but equally by artificially inflating another student’s scores, thereby disadvantaging deserving candidates in competitive examinations.
For many students and parents across Sri Lanka, the ruling marks a significant victory for transparency, fairness, and the public’s constitutional right to information.