Why Did the Karnataka High Court Deny Relief to Doctor Sharanya Padma in the Nandini Milk Case?

The Karnataka High Court on Monday refused to stay criminal proceedings against a Bengaluru-based dermatologist accused of spreading misinformation about "Nandini" dairy products via Instagram. Refusing to grant interim relief to the accused practitioner, Justice M. Nagaprasanna emphasised that social media platforms cannot be leveraged to generate public panic without a verifiable scientific basis. The court has directed both the State government and the Karnataka Milk Federation (KMF) to file their formal responses to the doctor's quashing petition.

Federation Alleges Defamation via Social Media

The legal dispute stems from a criminal complaint lodged by the KMF, the apex body representing the state's dairy cooperative network, against dermatologist Dr Sharanya Padma. According to the federation's complaint, Dr Padma uploaded short-form video reels on Instagram and other digital platforms making defamatory claims that specific Nandini products were unsafe for public consumption. Karnataka High Court Declines To Quash Case Against Congress Leader Mukarram Khan Over 2022 Hijab Row Speech.

The prosecution noted that the doctor allegedly labelled certain products, including Nandini's strawberry-flavoured milk and allied beverages, as toxic and chemically adulterated, warning her followers that their consumption could trigger acute health complications. Following the KMF's complaint, the Malleshwaram police registered a formal criminal case against Dr Padma, who operates a clinic in Malur, Kolar district, alongside her employment at a private hospital in Bengaluru.

Court Questions Scientific Basis of Claims

During the preliminary hearing on Monday, counsel representing Dr Padma argued that the doctor's online commentary was strictly confined to the brand's strawberry-flavoured beverages and did not extend to standard Nandini milk. The submission drew sharp rebukes from the single-judge bench, which questioned the medical practitioner's authority to broadcast unverified safety warnings. "How can you tell that? You are generating panic among all citizens. 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.

The High Court observed that the alarming assertions were blasted to online audiences before any standard lab testing or regulatory verification of the milk's quality had taken place. "'Spurious milk'... what do you mean? You can't generate panic like this. Saying milk is spurious, the strawberry flavour is not good — if it is not good, then you don't drink. Why do you have to do all this? Did anybody send it for testing?" the bench added. ‘Cannot Be Allowed To Work Unregulated’: Karnataka High Court Dismisses X’s Pleas Against Centre’s Orders, Says Social Media Platforms Must Follow Indian Laws.

Rising Concerns Over Digital Misinformation

Expressing broader concern over the growing trend of medical professionals and influencers circulating unverified health claims online, the court underscored the real-world societal impact of viral digital content. "Casually, at the drop of a hat, you make statements and create problems in society. Instagram is not meant for that," the judge observed. The case has been adjourned pending the submission of responses from the law enforcement authorities and the Karnataka Milk Federation, with the original criminal proceedings set to continue in the trial court.

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Jun 22, 2026 10:41 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).