HC Denies Stay On FIR Against Doctor Over Viral Nandini Milk Safety Reels

The Karnataka High Court on Monday, June 22, 2026, refused to grant interim relief to a Bengaluru-based dermatologist facing a criminal investigation for allegedly spreading misinformation about Nandini dairy products through social media. 

Justice M. Nagaprasanna declined to stay the ongoing police probe into Dr Sharanya Padma, observing that social media platforms should not be utilised to generate public panic without a scientific basis. The court issued notices to the state government and the Karnataka Milk Federation (KMF), allowing the Malleshwaram police to continue their investigation into the First Information Report (FIR) registered against the petitioner.

The legal proceedings originated from a complaint filed by Padmavathi R, an officer of the KMF, which manufactures and markets milk products under the popular Nandini brand. According to the complaint, Dr Padma uploaded reels on Instagram and other platforms on February 8, 2026, making serious allegations against specific Nandini items. The reels allegedly claimed that products such as strawberry-flavoured milk, cream buns, and other beverages were “toxic,” “poisonous,” and contained harmful chemicals. The petitioner purportedly warned that daily consumption of these items could lead to autoimmune diseases requiring steroid treatments and that long-term intake would “definitely result in cancer”.

Furthermore, the KMF alleged that the doctor questioned the regulatory approvals granted by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for these products. Dr Padma's viral content reportedly suggested that the strawberry-flavoured milk contained artificial colours and preservatives rather than natural fruit, and she accused the government-owned KMF of prioritising profits over public health safety. The KMF argued that such “false propaganda” created unnecessary confusion and fear among millions of consumers who have used the brand since childhood.

Based on these allegations, the Malleshwaram Police registered an FIR against Dr Padma under Section 353(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertains to the circulation of false information likely to cause fear or alarm in the public. Additionally, she was booked under Section 66D of the Information Technology Act for the alleged misuse of social media platforms. Seeking to halt the criminal proceedings, the doctor approached the High Court with a petition to quash the FIR and requested an interim stay on the investigation.

During the hearing, the counsel representing Dr Padma argued that the doctor’s comments were specifically limited to the strawberry-flavoured variant and were not intended as a general allegation against Nandini milk. The counsel further submitted that the petitioner had already tendered an apology for the controversy generated by her posts. These arguments, however, met with sharp oral observations from the Bench, which questioned the fundamental basis for such public claims.

Justice Nagaprasanna repeatedly questioned whether the doctor had any scientific evidence to support her assertions before publishing them to a wide audience and asked if the products had been sent for testing or if any certification had been obtained to prove they were “spurious” or unsafe. The court remarked that casually making such statements creates significant problems in society and that Instagram is not a venue meant for generating panic among citizens.

The Bench also expressed concern over the trend of individuals making public claims regarding consumer products without proper verification or supporting material. Justice Nagaprasanna observed that if a person finds a product unsatisfactory, they have the choice not to consume it, but they cannot use social media to incite alarm. The judge stated that statements should not be made “at the drop of a hat” when they involve essential goods and have the potential to disrupt social order.

The Karnataka Milk Federation, in its official stance, has maintained that all its products strictly adhere to food safety standards and approved procedures prescribed by FSSAI. The federation asserted that its products are completely safe for consumption and condemned the doctor's statements as “brand-defaming” and malicious. KMF’s leadership emphasised that it would continue to take legal action against individuals who circulate unverified information that harms the reputation of the public cooperative brand.

Case title: SMT. DR. SHARANYA PADMA v. State of Karnataka and Another.