Whenever the issue of men’s rights is discussed in India, the conversation ultimately comes back to one concern—false cases. Whether it is matrimonial disputes, domestic violence proceedings, dowry allegations, or maintenance litigation, the biggest challenge for many men is not merely defending a case but enduring years of litigation before their innocence is established.
The legal system presently offers very few effective remedies against false litigation. One such provision is Section 340 CrPC (now Section 379 BNSS), which permits prosecution for giving false evidence and perjury. However, anyone practising matrimonial law knows that these proceedings are rarely initiated by courts. In fact, the timing of a Section 340 application is crucial. Filing it at the wrong stage often results in dismissal or postponement until the evidence is complete. I have discussed this issue in detail in my article, “Best Time to File Section 340 CrPC Application,” where I explain the legal principles and judicial precedents governing such applications. Despite this remedy, the law still lacks an effective mechanism to filter out false cases at the very beginning, allowing the legal process itself to become the punishment.
The Supreme Court has also acknowledged concerns regarding misuse of criminal law. In Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, the Court famously observed that misuse of Section 498A could amount to “legal terrorism.”Parliament, too, appears to recognise that issues affecting men deserve attention, as reflected in the introduction of the National Commission for Men Bill, 2025.
However, the Bill is only a Private Member’s Bill. Historically, Private Member’s Bills have had an extremely low success rate in India, with the last one being enacted decades ago. Therefore, the chances of this Bill becoming law are remote. At best, it has succeeded in initiating a public debate on men’s rights.
Even if the Bill is enacted in its present form, it would remain a toothless tiger.
The proposed Commission has no criminal or civil adjudicatory powers. It cannot stop an arrest. It cannot direct the police to conduct a fair investigation. It cannot dismiss a false complaint. It cannot punish a complainant for filing false allegations. It cannot award compensation to a victim of malicious prosecution. It cannot direct disciplinary proceedings against investigating officers. It cannot grant interim protection to innocent litigants.
In short, it cannot provide the one thing most affected men seek—effective legal relief.
Certainly, Parliament cannot create a parallel judicial system. Courts alone decide criminal and civil disputes. But if that is so, an obvious question arises—what exactly will this Commission achieve?
The Bill primarily empowers the Commission to receive complaints, conduct studies, spread awareness, undertake research, recommend policy changes and advise the Government. These are useful functions in theory, but recommendations do not change ground realities. Governments are under no legal obligation to accept those recommendations. Parliament is not bound to amend any law because of them. Police officers are not required to alter their investigations. Courts are not bound by the Commission’s views.
Many non-governmental organisations are already providing counselling, legal guidance and support to distressed men. If the proposed Commission is confined to similar advisory functions, it risks becoming another institution that generates reports without delivering meaningful legal remedies.
The real issue is not awareness. The real issue is accountability.
If Parliament genuinely intends to protect innocent litigants, reforms must focus on:
- creating an effective mechanism to scrutinise false complaints at the earliest stage;
- strengthening the implementation of perjury proceedings under Section 379 BNSS (formerly Section 340 CrPC);
- providing compensation for malicious prosecution;
- fixing accountability of investigating officers who conduct biased investigations;
- discouraging frivolous litigation through meaningful consequences; and
- ensuring that the legal process itself does not become punishment.
Unfortunately, none of these structural reforms find place in the present Bill.
Another practical concern remains unanswered. Suppose a man approaches the proposed Commission with overwhelming evidence that a criminal case against him is false. What can the Commission actually do?
It cannot investigate the complaint with binding authority.
It cannot summon the complainant and decide whether the allegations are false.
It cannot direct the police to close the case.
It cannot stay criminal proceedings.
It cannot punish anyone for filing false allegations.
Ultimately, it can only recommend action.
A Commission that cannot enforce its recommendations, cannot provide legal relief and cannot hold anyone accountable is unlikely to change the lived experience of men facing false criminal litigation.
The National Commission for Men Bill, 2025 undoubtedly starts an important conversation. Recognition of men’s issues is a welcome step. However, recognition without meaningful statutory powers is merely symbolic.
Until Parliament introduces substantive procedural safeguards and effective remedies against malicious prosecution, the proposed National Commission for Men risks remaining exactly what its critics describe it as—
A toothless tiger that can roar, but cannot bite.
Advocate Nitish Banka is a first-generation lawyer with over a decade of courtroom experience, known for his strategic defense in complex matrimonial and criminal litigation. He is the founder of Lexspeak Legal, a premium litigation practice that focuses on false 498A/DV cases, maintenance disputes, quashing petitions, discharge, counter-cases, and high-stakes matrimonial strategy for Indian and NRI clients.
connect on 9891549997
Widely recognised for simplifying complex legal processes
