The Court of Appeal has ruled that examinees are entitled to access their own answer scripts and marks under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, dismissing an application filed by the The Open University of Sri Lanka seeking to block the release of such information.

The judgment was delivered by Court of Appeal Judges R. Gurusinghe and Dr. Sumudu Premachandra on 08 May 2026.

The case arose after R.A. Janaka Roshan Ranasinghe sought access to his daughter’s answer scripts and marks from the Open University LLB Selection Test held on 08 January 2023. The university had refused the request, arguing that releasing examination-related material could compromise the integrity and confidentiality of the examination process.

However, the Right to Information Commission later directed the university to release the requested information, prompting the institution to challenge the decision before the Court of Appeal.In the judgment, Justice Dr. Sumudu Premachandra stated that there was no reason to refuse an examinee access to their own answer script and how it had been marked.

“I do not see any reason to refuse if an examinee requests their own answer script, which they wrote, and how it was marked,” the judgment stated.The Court further stressed that transparency and accountability are key principles protected by Article 14A of the Constitution and the RTI Act.“There cannot be hide-and-seek games in higher institutions,” the judgment noted while emphasizing the importance of transparency in public institutions.The bench also held that university by-laws cannot override the RTI Act, noting that the law prevails over any conflicting institutional regulations.The Court cited previous Sri Lankan and Indian case law supporting the right of candidates to inspect evaluated answer sheets, while maintaining that the identities of examiners could remain confidential.

The application filed by the university was ultimately dismissed, with the Court observing that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting revisionary jurisdiction