Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Law to Protect Men from False Cases

The PIL, filed by petitioner Chandrama Vishvakarma, urged the court to issue directions to the Union of India and other respondents to enact a statute safeguarding men against what was described as “illegal prosecution and harassment by women".

The petitioner cited unspecified news reports to argue that there has been a growing trend of men being falsely implicated in criminal and matrimonial cases, particularly under provisions dealing with dowry harassment, domestic violence, and sexual offences.

However, the bench found the petition to be wholly superficial. After examining its contents, the court observed that apart from vague references to media reports, the petitioner had failed to present any concrete facts, statistical data, or instances that could justify judicial interference or legislative directions.

The bench remarked that the pleadings were cursory and did not reveal any genuine public cause.

With these observations, the bench summarily dismissed the petition, declining to entertain it any further.

In related contexts, LawBeat has documented several instances where courts and judges have addressed the concern of misuse of gender-protective laws. In a recent decision, the Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of rape after finding that the complainant had a pattern of lodging false complaints. Court noted that the complainant was a habitual complainant and filed similar false complaints against many other innocent persons and Haryana police had filed criminal cases against the complainant for the offences of extortion.

The high court stressed that while rape laws serve a crucial purpose, courts must remain vigilant to prevent their misuse as instruments of personal vendetta or extortion.

The Supreme Court judge Justice N. Kotiswar Singh also recently warned that “making false allegations under the POSH Act is equally dangerous and will compromise the system". He underscored that weaponizing workplace harassment laws could undermine the credibility of genuine survivors and erode public trust in institutional grievance mechanisms.

Adding to this broader debate, former Chief Justice of India Justice U.U. Lalit recently criticized the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for omitting gender neutrality in sexual offence laws. In an event, he remarked, “You have not only lost that opportunity of making it gender neutral … you have also dropped 377, which means that if a man without his consent is subjected to that kind of offence, then today where is the window to ventilate the grievance? There is none.” He called this omission “an incorrect idea,” arguing that male victims remain “remediless” within India’s new criminal framework.