SDB Bank loan dispute brings private banks within information law
Sri Lanka's Right to Information Commission has ruled that a private bank operating under a licence issued by the Monetary Board of the Central Bank falls within the definition of a public authority under the Right to Information Act, No. 12 of 2016. The decision arose from a customer's request for information about how SANASA Development Bank PLC reviewed the interest rate on his loan.
Contents
The Commission delivered its decision on October 21, 2026, in Appeal No. RTC/Appeal/1005/2025, brought by customer Udara Ranasinghe. It rejected SDB Bank's argument that its incorporation under the Companies Act, No. 7 of 2007, placed it outside the information law.
The ruling gives borrowers a concrete reason to pay attention to a legal definition that might otherwise sound remote. A bank's status as a public authority determines whether citizens can use the RTI Act to seek information it holds, subject to the exemptions in that law.
For Ranasinghe, the issue began with his own borrowing costs. His request concerned the way his loan interest rate had been reviewed. The appeal then required the Commission to address a wider question: whether a privately owned bank licensed by the banking regulator must answer requests under the RTI Act.
What the customer asked and how the bank responded
Ranasinghe sought information about the review of the interest rate applicable to his loan. SDB Bank sent him an email response on April 9, 2025, but he remained dissatisfied and appealed to the Commission.
During the appeal proceedings, the bank said it had supplied information by email on four occasions. It also challenged whether the RTI Act applied to it at all, relying on its registration as a company under the 2007 Companies Act.
The dispute therefore involved both the customer's dissatisfaction with the information supplied and the bank's legal status. Sending an answer and being subject to a statutory duty to provide information are different issues. The Commission's decision addressed the latter by finding that the bank came within the Act's definition.
The loan amount, the interest rates involved, the detailed contents of the four emails and any further disclosure instructions were not specified in the accounts of the decision. Those details would be needed to explain precisely what information Ranasinghe still sought after receiving the bank's responses.
Why the banking licence mattered
SDB Bank based its objection on its corporate identity. It argued that, because it was incorporated under the Companies Act, it did not qualify as a public authority under the RTI Act.
The Commission instead found that a private bank operating under a licence issued by the Monetary Board of the Central Bank falls within the statutory definition. Its reasoning, as described in the decision accounts, made the banking licence central to the outcome.
In plain language, a company can be privately owned while still having duties under a law governing access to information. Here, the Commission treated SDB Bank's licensed banking activity as bringing it within that law, despite its incorporation as a company.
The panel comprised Commission Chairman Dayaratne Lankapura and Commissioners Kishali Pinto Jayawardena and A. Mohomed Nahiya. Their finding rejected the bank's proposed exclusion and clarified the application of the RTI Act to a privately owned bank operating under the specified licence.
How the right to information works in this case
Section 3(1) of the Right to Information Act gives every citizen a right of access to information in the possession, custody or control of a public authority, subject to Section 5. Put simply, the right concerns information that an institution holds or controls, with legal exceptions governing what can be released.
Section 43 of the Right to Information Act defines which institutions count as public authorities. Paragraph (e) covers a company incorporated under the Companies Act, No. 7 of 2007, in which the State, a public corporation, or the State and a public corporation together hold 25 per cent or more of the shares or otherwise have a controlling interest. That provision matters because the Act's reach extends beyond institutions identified simply by government ownership.
Paragraph (g) separately covers a private entity or organisation carrying out a statutory or public function or service under a contract, partnership, agreement or licence from the government, its agencies or a local body. Its coverage is limited to activities covered by that statutory or public function or service.
The Commission applied the statutory definition to SDB Bank and found that the licensed private bank was covered. For a citizen making a request, this classification is the starting point: it establishes that the institution has responsibilities under the information law.
Section 5 remains part of that process. A request for information must still be considered alongside the Act's exemptions. The practical position is therefore a right to seek information from a covered bank, followed by consideration of the particular information requested and the relevant legal provisions.
For borrowers, this makes the reason for a request especially important. Ranasinghe asked about the review of the interest rate on his own loan, giving the dispute a defined subject rather than a general demand for banking information.
The sequence from email response to ruling
The case moved from an exchange between a customer and his bank to a formal appeal over the scope of Sri Lanka's information law. The key dates and stages were:
- April 9, 2025: SDB Bank responded by email to Ranasinghe's request about the review of his loan interest rate.
- After that response: Ranasinghe, dissatisfied with the information supplied, appealed to the RTI Commission.
- During the appeal: The bank said it had supplied information by email on four occasions and argued that it was outside the Act's definition of a public authority.
- October 21, 2026: The Commission rejected the bank's position on its status in Appeal No. RTC/Appeal/1005/2025.
- October 26, 2026: Details of the ruling became public.
Attorney Manoja Gunawardana, with Himashi Kumaratunga, appeared for Ranasinghe. Attorney K.D. Premaratne, with B.M.P. Nayanathara, appeared for SDB Bank.
The chronology shows how an ordinary request about a loan can lead to a decision affecting the interpretation of a national law. The customer's dissatisfaction brought the matter before the Commission, where the bank's objection required a ruling on whether the information rights framework applied.
What changes for borrowers and banks
Borrowers seeking to understand an interest rate review now have a Commission decision placing a licensed private bank within the RTI Act. The practical value lies in access to an established process for requesting information and challenging a response, as Ranasinghe did.
An interest rate determines the interest charged on a loan. Understanding how that rate was reviewed can help a customer follow the bank's explanation of borrowing costs and identify the particular decision or calculation they want explained. In this case, that need for an explanation was the starting point for the appeal.
Private banks operating under the licensing arrangement identified by the Commission must take account of the ruling when assessing their responsibilities under the Act. SDB Bank's argument rested on company registration; the Commission's answer rested on the statutory definition and the bank's licence.
The wider significance is a clearer route between a customer's financial question and the legal process for obtaining information. The decision places licensed private banking within that process, while the Act's provisions continue to govern access to each requested record.
Key Points
- The RTI Commission ruled that a private bank operating under a licence issued by the Central Bank's Monetary Board qualifies as a public authority under the RTI Act.
- The decision concerned Udara Ranasinghe's request about the review of the interest rate on his SDB Bank loan.
- SDB Bank said it supplied information through four emails and argued that its incorporation under the Companies Act placed it outside the RTI Act.
- The Commission rejected that argument on October 21, 2026, in Appeal No. RTC/Appeal/1005/2025.
- Access to information remains subject to the exemptions in Section 5 of the Act.
