View of Karnataka High Court.
As “old and outdated information lacking legal support” maintained by the Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) on its website has led to confusion about the status of the facility, the Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to formulate a comprehensive policy to ensure that all content on the official website is accurate, up-to-date and in compliance with the law.
“Public authorities must recognize that any statement made on official websites carries weight and authority. Even if such material does not have the force of law, it influences public behavior. Inconsistent or outdated information can undermine public confidence and lead to accusations of arbitrariness or unfairness,” the court said.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued the directions while dismissing a petition filed in 2016 by Jain International Residential School, which raised some controversy over the propriety of levying water charges.
The petitioner school also sought relief in fees classified as ‘educational institution’, relying in this regard on uploading the charter document of the customer on the official website of the BWSSB. However, the BWSSB told the court that it was an “outdated guidance document uploaded in 2005 with no force of law” and the court said the petitioner could not benefit from the non-statutory information uploaded on the website.
Meanwhile, the court also directed the BWSSB to regularly review the content of its website, ensure the accuracy of the content and promptly remove or correct any outdated or misleading material.
As regards the dispute over calculation of pro rata charges for water and sanitation, the court allowed the petitioner to appeal to the statutory authorities under the provisions of the BWSSB Act, 1964 within sixty days, asking the authorities to decide the appeal as per the law.
Importance of Websites
When a statutory body publishes a customer list or similar document on its official website, the public has the right to believe that the content correctly corresponds to the applicable legal situation, the court said, noting that the difference between a legal regulation and an administrative document may be clear to lawyers but not apparent to the layman. Therefore, the court said, “If a website contains information that is not strictly in accordance with statutory regulations, it can cause real confusion.”
The court emphasized the key role played by the official websites of various ministries, boards of directors, corporations and statutory bodies of state administration in the modern governance environment, while pointing out that for a large number of citizens, official websites are the primary and often the only source of information.
Three months
The court directed the Secretary, e-Governance Department to formulate a policy within three months and said it should have a system of prior legal vetting before uploading any documents related to legal rights or obligations; prescribed fees, payments, classifications, penalties or claims; or interpretations or explanations of provisions of law, rules or regulations.
The policy should state that any informational or explanatory document hosted on official websites has a standardized statement that in the event of any conflict, the relevant statutory provisions prevail, the court said.
In addition, the policy should include provisions for annual audits of digital content by each department; confirmation by the head of the department that the content of the website is up-to-date and in accordance with applicable laws; and a version control and archive tracking system, the court said.
The court also said that the policy should have a facility to allow citizens to flag irregularities, a designated official responsible for website content in each department, a defined protocol for correcting errors; and deadlines for correction once irregularities are detected.
INFO BOX
* All statutory documents must undergo legal review before being published on the official website
* Websites must clearly separate binding regulations from explanatory material
* A standardized disclaimer is required stating which legal provisions take precedence over online content
* Annual audits of digital content certified by department heads are mandatory
*A citizen complaint mechanism must be in place to report content irregularities
Published – March 3, 2026 11:10 PM IST
