Karnataka HC directs State government to formulate policy for accurate content management on govt. websites

As an “old and outdated information lacking statutory backing” retained by the Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) on its website had lead to confusion over status of a facility, the High Court of Karnataka has directed the State government to formulate a comprehensive policy to ensure that all contents on official websites is accurate, current and consistent with the law.

“Public authorities must recognise that any representation made on an official website carries weight and authority. Even if such material does not have statutory force, it influences public conduct. Inconsistent or outdated information can undermine public confidence and give rise to allegations of arbitrariness or unfairness,” the court observed.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued the directions while dismissing a petition filed in 2016 by Jain International Residential School raising certain disputes over correctness of levy of water charges.

The petitioner-school had also claimed concession in charges under classification as ‘educational institution’ relying on customer charter document upload on the BWSSB’s official website in this regard. However, the BWSSB had told the court that the it was “an outdated guidance document uploaded in 2005 without statutory force” and the court said that petitioner could not get benefit from non-statutory backed information uploaded on the website.

Meanwhile, the court also directed the BWSSB to regularly review contents on its website, ensure accuracy of contents and remove or correct any outdated or misleading material without delay.

With regard to dispute over computation of pro-rata water and sanitary charges, the court allowed the petitioner to file appeal before the statutory authorities as per the provisions of BWSSB Act, 1964, within sixty days while asking authorities to decide the appeal as per the law.

Importance of websites

When a statutory body publishes a customer charter or similar document on its official website, the public is entitled to assume that the contents correctly reflect the applicable legal position, the court said while pointing out that the distinction between a statutory regulation and an administrative document may be clear to lawyers, but it is not apparent to a layman. Therefore, the court said, “If the website contains information that does not strictly align with the statutory regulations, it can create genuine confusion.”

The court emphasised the critical role official websites of the State government’s various departments, boards, corporations, the statutory authorities play in the modern governance landscape, while pointing out that for a large number of citizens the official websites are primary, and often only source of information.

Three months

Directing the Secretary, e-Governance Department to formulate a policy in three months, the court said that it should have a system of prior legal vetting before uploading any documents related to statutory rights or obligations; prescribed fees, charges, classifications, penalties, or entitlements; or interpretations or explains of provision of an Act, Rules, or Regulations.

The policy should state that every informational or explanatory document hosted on official websites carry a standardised disclaimer stating that in the event of any inconsistency, the relevant statutory provisions shall prevail, the court said.

Besides, the policy should have provision for annual digital content audits by each department; certification by the head of the department that the website content is updated and consistent with current law; and a system of version control and archival tracking, the court said.

The court also said that the policy should have facility to allow citizens to point out discrepancies, a designated officer responsible for website content in each department, a defined protocol for correction of errors; and timelines for rectification once discrepancies are noticed.

INFO BOX

* All statutory documents must undergo legal vetting before publication on official websites

* Websites must clearly segregate binding regulations from explanatory material

* Standardised disclaimer required stating statutory provisions prevail over online content

* Annual digital content audits with certification by department heads are mandatory

*Citizen complaint mechanism for reporting content discrepancies must be established