The Karnataka High Court on 22 June refused to stay the investigation against a Bengaluru-based doctor accused of posting Instagram reels that allegedly raised concerns about the safety of a Nandini strawberry-flavoured milk product. The Court allowed the police probe to continue while issuing notice to the State and other respondents.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna made strong oral observations during the hearing, questioning the basis of statements allegedly made by the doctor regarding the dairy product.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint lodged by the Karnataka Milk Federation (KMF), which alleged that dermatologist Dr. Sharanya Padma circulated misleading content on social media platforms concerning certain Nandini milk products.
According to the complaint, the reels suggested that strawberry-flavoured milk and similar beverages were unsafe for consumption and contained harmful substances. KMF claimed that such statements could mislead consumers and damage public confidence in its products.
Based on the complaint, the Malleshwaram Police registered an FIR against the doctor under Section 353(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), relating to circulation of false information likely to cause fear or alarm, and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act.
Dr. Padma subsequently approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and a stay on the ongoing investigation.
Court Questions Basis of Social Media Claims
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued that the doctor had commented only on strawberry-flavoured products and had not made allegations regarding Nandini milk generally. It was also submitted that she had apologised for the controversy.
The submission, however, prompted sharp questions from the Bench.
Justice Nagaprasanna orally remarked,
“How can you tell that? You are generating panic amongst all citizens. Are you certified? Have you tested it? Have you communicated it to the government?”
The Court repeatedly questioned whether any scientific testing had been conducted before the statements were posted online.
Referring to the allegation that the product was “spurious,” the judge observed,
“You cannot generate panic like this saying milk is spurious. That strawberry flavour is not good. Why do you have to do all this?”
Concern Over Unverified Social Media Content
The Court expressed concern about individuals making public claims regarding consumer products without supporting material or verification.
Justice Nagaprasanna observed that social media platforms should not be used to spread unverified information capable of causing public alarm.
“If it is not good, then you don't drink. How can you generate panic among citizens?”
the judge remarked during the proceedings.
The Court further noted,
“Casually, at the drop of a hat, you make statements and create problems in society. Instagram is not meant for that.”
Decision
After hearing the parties, the High Court declined to grant interim protection to the petitioner.
Dictating the order, Justice Nagaprasanna stated,
“Issue notice... No stay. I will permit investigation.”
As a result, the police investigation into the FIR will continue while the Court considers the doctor's plea seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Case Details:
Case Title: SMT. DR. SHARANYA PADMA v. State of Karnataka and Another
Case Number: CRL.P. No. 6470/2026
Judge: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Decision Date: June 22, 2026
