When the State is under surveillance

Earlier this month, the Court of Appeal issued a judgement upholding a decision of the Right to Information Commission (RTIC) giving a petitioner from Galle the right to obtain information on how a state bank conducted a competitive examination regarding recruitments of officers several years ago.

The Court agreed with the Commission that while interview marks of other candidates and the merit list of those who had been selected may well amount to personal information, the release of the information was in the public interest.

The petitioner concerned had passed the examination (please see full story on page 6) but had not been shortlisted. She deserved the ‘right to know why’ as a citizen and a member of the ‘public’ representing the larger ‘public interest’.

The overall question here was whether public examinations should be ‘honest, upright and transparent?’ In answering that question as ‘yes', the Court’s position was that when a merit list prepared on individual marks determines as to who should or should not be selected, its release is not an unwarranted invasion of privacy. This finding has wider resonance beyond the facts of the case.

The inclination to closely guard information relevant to promotions, recruitments and salaries of the public sector is common not only in banks but also in other public sector institutions including universities. Lots happen after the marking process which leaves applicants bewildered and angry at being shortchanged. The decision in this case should therefore be a motivational factor in a change in attitude in general across the state sector.

The Court observed the importance of striking a balance between the right to privacy and the larger public interest. This caution is very relevant at a time when a Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) is being operationalized. Meanwhile, one of the Justices of the Court made some important assessments on how the RTI Act has turned the traditional balance of power upside down. Instead of the State policing citizens, citizens are questioning the State and the State is compelled to ‘police itself’ due to fear of adverse public opinion.

This is the opposite of the ‘Surveillance State’, he remarked. ‘The roles have been exchanged, the observer has become the observed,’ he pointed out.