Karnataka High Court Upholds Criminal Proceedings Over Instagram Misinformation
The Karnataka High Court, on Monday, refused to grant a stay on the criminal proceedings against Dr. Sharanya Padma, a dermatologist from Bengaluru. The proceedings were initiated following accusations that she disseminated false claims about Nandini dairy products on social media platforms, particularly Instagram. The case, titled Dr Sharanya Padma Vs State of Karnataka, has attracted significant legal attention.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the matter, emphasized that social media should not be a platform for creating public panic based on unsubstantiated claims. The court declined Dr. Padma’s request to quash the criminal case, reinforcing the need for a scientific basis before making public allegations about product safety. Justice Nagaprasanna further requested responses from both the State and the Karnataka Milk Federation (KMF), the latter being the complainant in the case.
KMF’s Allegations and Legal Proceedings
The Karnataka Milk Federation lodged a formal complaint against Dr. Padma, alleging that she posted Instagram reels and other social media content suggesting that certain Nandini products were hazardous to health. Specifically, she purportedly claimed that the strawberry-flavored milk and similar beverages contained harmful chemicals. These statements prompted the Malleshwaram police to register a case against Dr. Padma, who practices at a private hospital in Bengaluru and manages a clinic in Malur, Kolar district.
In response to these allegations, Dr. Padma filed a petition seeking to annul the legal actions taken against her. Her legal counsel argued that her comments were restricted to the strawberry-flavored products and did not target Nandini milk as a whole. However, these arguments met with skepticism from the court.
Court’s Reaction to the Accusations
The court expressed strong reservations about Dr. Padma’s social media statements, questioning the basis of her claims. Justice Nagaprasanna remarked, “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?” The judge’s inquiries underscored the lack of scientific testing or governmental communication backing her claims.
More Read
Further elaborating, the court questioned the rationale behind labeling the products as ‘spurious’ without credible evidence. Justice Nagaprasanna noted, “‘Spurious milk’… what do you mean? You can’t generate panic like this. Saying milk is spurious, the strawberry flavor 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?”
Social Media Responsibility Highlighted
The case highlights a growing concern over the spread of unverified information on social media platforms. The court’s comments reflect a broader judicial apprehension about the potential societal impact of casual and unsubstantiated statements made online. Justice Nagaprasanna’s closing remarks were poignant: “Casually, at the drop of a hat, you make statements and create problems in society. Instagram is not meant for that.”
