Karnataka HC Warns: “Instagram Not for Panic” in Nandini Case
Court says unverified claims on food safety risk public trust
Reels alleging toxicity of dairy products face criminal probe
By Our Legal Correspondent
New Delhi: June 23, 2026:
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a Bengaluru dermatologist who posted Instagram reels claiming Nandini dairy products were “toxic.” The Court stressed that social media cannot be used to generate public panic without scientific evidence, highlighting the intersection of food safety laws, defamation, and digital responsibility
1. Case Background
Dr. Sharanya Padma, a Bengaluru-based dermatologist, uploaded Instagram reels alleging that Nandini’s strawberry-flavoured milk contained harmful chemicals and was unsafe for consumption. The Karnataka Milk Federation (KMF) lodged a complaint, leading to an FIR under Section 353(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (statements conducing to public mischief) and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act (misrepresentation using electronic communication).
The doctor sought relief from the High Court, arguing her comments were limited to flavoured beverages and not Nandini milk as a whole. She also tendered an apology. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, however, refused to stay proceedings, observing that Instagram is not meant to create panic.
2. Key Legal Provisions Discussed
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Section 353(1)(b): Criminalizes statements that cause public alarm or mischief.
Information Technology Act, Section 66D: Penalizes impersonation or misrepresentation using electronic communication.
Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006: Provides mechanisms for testing and certifying food products. The Court emphasized that concerns about food safety must be routed through statutory authorities, not social media.
Defamation Law (IPC Section 499/500, now subsumed under BNS): Protects reputation of individuals and organizations against false statements.
3. Court’s Observations
Unverified Claims: The Court questioned whether the products had been tested or certified before being labelled “toxic.”
Public Panic: Statements on essential goods like milk can cause unnecessary alarm and damage consumer confidence.
Proper Channels: Concerns about product safety should be reported to regulators, not broadcast on Instagram reels.
Professional Responsibility: As a medical practitioner, the petitioner was expected to exercise caution before making public health claims.
4. Implications of the Judgment
For Social Media Users: Highlights growing accountability for online statements, especially regarding public health.
For Brands: Reinforces legal protection against misinformation that can harm reputation.
For Regulators: Encourages reliance on scientific testing and statutory mechanisms rather than viral content.
For Courts: Sets precedent on balancing free speech with consumer protection.
5. Broader Legal and Social Context
This case reflects a global trend: courts are increasingly scrutinizing misinformation on digital platforms. In India, where dairy products are staple goods, false claims can affect millions. The ruling underscores that freedom of expression is not absolute—it must be exercised responsibly, especially when public health and brand reputation are at stake.
FAQ: Key Legal Points (Searchable Index Format)
Q1: What law was invoked against the doctor? Section 353(1)(b) of the BNS (public mischief) and Section 66D of the IT Act.
Q2: Why did the Karnataka HC refuse relief? Because the statements lacked scientific evidence and had potential to cause public panic.
Q3: What did the Court say about Instagram? It stated that Instagram is not meant to create panic or spread unverified claims about essential goods.
Q4: Could this be considered defamation? Yes, if the statements are proven false and damaging to KMF’s reputation.
Q5: What is the Food Safety and Standards Act’s role here? It provides the proper mechanism for testing and certifying food products—complaints should be routed through FSSAI.
Q6: What is Section 66D IT Act? It penalizes misrepresentation or impersonation using electronic communication.
Q7: Did the doctor apologize? Yes, but the Court still allowed investigation to continue.
Q8: What precedent does this set? That professionals and influencers may face criminal liability for unverified health claims on social media.
Q9: How can consumers raise genuine concerns? By filing complaints with FSSAI or consumer courts, not by posting unverified claims online.
Q10: What is the societal impact of such misinformation? It erodes trust in essential goods, creates unnecessary panic, and damages brand reputation.