The Karnataka High Court has refused interim protection to dermatologist Dr Sharanya Padma in a case concerning her social media claims about Nandini dairy products. The Court questioned whether unverified statements about food safety could be circulated publicly through Instagram without scientific evidence.
Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing Dr Padma’s petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her. The case was registered following a complaint by the Karnataka Milk Federation, which markets dairy products under the Nandini brand.
The complaint relates to Instagram reels in which Dr Padma allegedly described certain Nandini products, including strawberry-flavoured milk, as toxic and containing harmful chemicals. KMF alleged that these statements were misleading and could create unnecessary fear among consumers.
The Malleshwaram police registered the case based on KMF’s complaint. Dr Padma reportedly works at a private hospital in Bengaluru and also operates a clinic in Kolar district.
During the hearing, her lawyer submitted that the remarks were limited to flavoured products and were not directed against Nandini’s regular milk. The Court, however, questioned whether the doctor had conducted any testing or approached the appropriate authorities before making such claims publicly.
“How can you say Nandini milk is not good? Have you tested it? Are you certified? Have you communicated it to the government? Is Instagram meant for that?” Justice Nagaprasanna remarked during the proceedings.
The Court expressed concern that serious statements about widely consumed products appeared to have been made without laboratory reports, scientific verification or findings from a recognised food safety authority.
“Spurious milk… what do you mean? You can’t generate panic like this. If it is not good, then you don’t drink. How can you generate panic among citizens?” the judge said.
Justice Nagaprasanna also cautioned against casually publishing allegations that may affect public confidence and create wider social consequences. “Casually… you make statements and create problems in society. Instagram is not meant for that,” he added.
The Court ultimately declined to stay the criminal proceedings at this stage. However, it issued notice and sought responses from the Karnataka government and the Karnataka Milk Federation on the doctor’s petition.
The matter raises important questions about responsibility while sharing health-related information online. Professionals may express concerns about consumer products, but serious claims concerning safety are expected to be supported by credible evidence and communicated through appropriate regulatory channels.
The proceedings also reflect increasing judicial attention towards misinformation on social media, particularly where online content may influence public health decisions, consumer behaviour and the reputation of widely used products.
——————————————–
Have a case update, article, or deal to share? Courtroom Today welcomes contributions from lawyers, law firms, and legal professionals. Write to contact@courtroomtoday.com
