"Luxury litigation": Supreme Court closes plea against Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act

The Supreme Court today closed one among several petitions challenging Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, after noting that the litigant had already secured relief by way of a settlement in the inheritance dispute that had led her to file the case [Kamal Anant Khopkar Versus Union of India & Anr]..A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal opined that it cannot permit such "luxury litigation.""This has nothing to do with gender justice. We do not appreciate luxury litigation when relief has been received, we do not accept practice of filing PILs in such cases ... When your party has settled, where is the lis? Matter is over", Justice Nagarathna remarked.The top court, thus, disposed of the plea, which was the lead writ petition (being the first to raise the issue) in a batch of petitions that concerned the validity of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act."In the circumstances, we do not think that the very same petitioner can be permitted to continue the case as a public interest litigation or petition under Article 32 of the Constitution; thus disposed of," the Court said. The rest of the pleas in the batch of petitions challenging Section 15 (which were earlier tagged with the lead plea disposed of today) were adjourned and remain pending. .The plea closed today was filed by one Kamal Anant Khopkar, who was among those who questioned the Constitutional validity of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act.The petitioner was affected by the manner in which her deceased daughter's property was distributed after she passed away intestate (without a will).The petition filed through advocates Mrunal Dattatraya and Dhairyashil Salunkhe contended that Section 15 discriminates between men and women with respect to devolution of property intestate..Under Section 15, the husband of a Hindu woman who dies intestate gets preference in inheriting her property over the woman's own parents. A husband alive at the time of her death could take all of the woman's property without leaving any share for her own mother or father, the plea pointed out.In certain cases, this also meant that the husband's relatives may get preference in inheriting such property over the woman's parents, such as when the husband too passes away leaving his blood relatives as his heirs. On the other hand, under Section 8 of the Act, a man's blood relatives (including his parents) are also included in the class 1 heirs that would get first preference in inheritance of property left behind if the male dies intestate. .Pertinently, Section 15 also gave preference in inheritance rights to the heirs of the woman's father over her own mother or the mother's heirs. This meant that even if the property in question was inherited by the woman from her mother, her father and his heirs would still get preference in inheriting such property. The Supreme Court had issued notice in the matter in 2019 after noting that it raised an important question on gender equality..Khopkar (petitioner) had also filed an appeal challenging a Bombay High Court order rejecting a caveat plea in her inheritance dispute. The High Court had denied her relief on the ground that she did not have a caveatable interest in the property of her deceased daughter, while the daughter's husband was alive.However, since the dispute has since been settled (and the appeal against the High Court order not entertained subsequently), the top court today disposed of Khopkar's writ petition as well.