ICTA directed by RTIC to disclose information on salaries, allowances paid to staff and consultants

The Right to Information Commission (RTIC) has directed the Information & Communication Technology Agency of Sri Lanka (ICTA) to disclose information on names, designations, basic salaries and allowances paid to ICTA’s staff in 2019, 2020 and 2021.

It also called on ICTA to disclose the names, remunerations and allowances paid to consultants in service and the organizational chart of the Public Authority as of 03.07.2021.

The order was made in response to an appeal by a citizen, Gamini Karunaratne, against ‘incomplete, misleading and false’ information given by the Information Officer of ICTA, a Public Authority.

The Commission had noted that the ICTA had responded to Mr Karunaratne by providing a web link with information on salary scales and staff designations up to May 2021. That web link had been given as a result of a Commission decision in that same year on an appeal filed by Wasantha Deshapriya asking also for information on ICTA's salaries.

However, that response did not address a ‘significant part’ of the current request by Mr Karunaratne, the Commission ruled. Notably, the names of staff, dates of joining, allowances as well as names of consultants, remuneration and allowances as of 03.07.2021 (a date subsequent to the date of the upload), had not been provided.

By not responding to the request filed by Mr Karunaratne on 03.08.2021, the ICTA Designated Officer did not perform the mandatory duties imposed upon him/her under Section 31 of the RTI Act, the Commission said. It ruled that ICTA’s explanation that this was due to ‘operational challenges’ as it had a ‘high turnover’ at the time was unacceptable.

“It is the bounden duty of ICTA to follow procedures laid down in the RTI Act to the letter, particularly as close to seven years have passed since its enactment,” the Commission observed.

Before the Commission, ICTA had raised the objection that the

Appellant, Mr Karunaratne had submitted another appeal to the DO nine months after his request and appeal to the DO as ‘an attempt to circumvent the provisions of the Act’ to excuse his delay in appealing to the Commission thereafter.

The Commission, however, pointed out that Mr Karunaratne had sent several emails and requests to the Public Authority on his grievance. He had appealed again to the DO because of failure to respond and had cited the Covid-19 pandemic at the time and “other stressful circumstances” as reasons as to why he delayed several months to appeal to the Commission. This delay was therefore excused under Section 32 (2), the Commission decided while noting that it was required not to be ‘overly technical’ in accepting appeals.

ICTA had further objected to the release of names of staff and consultants vis a vis payment of salaries and allowances stating that this constitutes ‘personal information’ and also that Mr Karunaratne, the Appellant (an employee of the Public Authority, ICTA) had filed a case before the Labour Tribunal. These grounds were dismissed on the basis that several earlier decisions of the Commission had taken the stand that information on salaries and allowances are not ‘personal information’ but amount to ‘general institutional information’ that must be disclosed.

“There is a high degree of public interest in the transparent and accountable working of entities such as the Public Authority,” the Commission said.

The fact of the Appellant filing a case in the Labour Tribunal “cannot be construed in such a manner as to deprive of his legitimate right to information under the RTI Act,” the Commission said.

Observing that the Commission was unable to comprehend as to how and in what manner such information can have a prejudicial impact on the maintenance of the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, it was ruled that Section 5(1)(j) was inapplicable.

ICTA has been given time till May 24 to release the information asked for.