A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal remarked that they could not allow 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.

Therefore, the Supreme Court, disposed of the plea, which was the lead writ petition in a series of cases challenging 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 remaining pleas in the batch, which were previously tagged with the lead plea disposed of today, were adjourned and are still pending.

The plea disposed of today was filed by Kamal Anant Khopkar, who had challenged the constitutional validity of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. The petitioner was aggrieved by how her deceased daughter's property was distributed after her daughter passed away intestate (without a will). 

The petition, filed through advocates Mrunal Dattatraya and Dhairyashil Salunkhe, argued that Section 15 discriminates between men and women in the devolution of property intestate. According to the petitioner, Section 15 gives preference to the husband of a Hindu woman who dies intestate in inheriting her property over her own parents. In such cases, the husband could inherit all of the woman's property, leaving no share for her parents. This preference could also extend to the husband's relatives if he passed away, with his blood relatives inheriting the property instead of the woman's parents. 

In contrast, under Section 8 of the Act, a man's blood relatives, including his parents, are classified as Class 1 heirs who have the first right to inherit his property if he dies intestate. Furthermore, Section 15 prioritizes the inheritance rights of the woman's father's heirs over her mother's heirs, even when the property was inherited by the woman from her mother.

The Supreme Court had issued a notice in 2019, recognizing the case as raising important questions on gender equality. 

Khopkar had also filed an appeal challenging a Bombay High Court order that had rejected her caveat plea in the inheritance dispute. The High Court denied her relief, ruling that she did not have a caveatable interest in her deceased daughter’s property while the daughter's husband was alive. However, as the dispute was later settled and the appeal was not pursued, the Supreme Court today disposed of her writ petition.