In a significant development in the ongoing battle for the inheritance of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur’s Rs 30,000 crore worth of estate, between his children from former wife Karisma Kapoor — Samaira and Kiaan — and widow Priya Kapur, the Delhi High Court has questioned Priya Kapur’s urge to file the list of his assets under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) and in a sealed cover.
The court, on Thursday, stressed the importance of transparency in inheritance disputes, especially when other heirs have a legitimate claim. This refusal has thrown Priya Kapur’s unusual demand for confidentiality into the spotlight, raising questions about its fairness and transparency.
Justice Jyoti Singh heard the matter on Thursday but expressed apprehensions about whether such an order can be passed as it may “create some problems”.
“It may be problematic for the simple reason that as the alleged beneficiary of the estate, they [Karisma Kapur’s children] have a right to question the assets disclosed…So, tomorrow, if they have to verify and go about asking what has happened, if they are bound with this confidentiality club, how will they ever defend their case?” the Court asked.
She challenged this request, asking how much information could realistically be kept under wraps and how the court could enforce such an order. She also asked Priya Sachdev’s team to point out any legal provision that allows asset disclosures to remain confidential.
In India, courts have consistently held that inheritance disputes must be adjudicated transparently to ensure that no legal heir is unfairly deprived of their rightful share. Never has a court allowed an NDA in such cases.
Even among India’s most prominent inheritance disputes, such as the Kalyani family’s litigation with the Hiremath family involving Rs 1 trillion, and the Kirloskar brothers’ asset disputes involving multi-thousands of crores, none of the families demanded NDAs over asset disclosure, despite the scale of the business empires involved being much larger than Sunjay Kapur-led Sona BLW.
Instead, the judiciary occasionally allows documents to be submitted under “sealed cover” or in-camera proceedings, primarily in exceptional circumstances such as national security or privacy-sensitive matters. But sealed cover is a judicial mechanism, not a private contract between parties, and courts have repeatedly stressed that secrecy should not undermine fairness. In Cdr. Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2022), the Supreme Court criticised vague sealed-cover submissions, noting they “undermine natural justice.” Similarly, the Bombay High Court in Sonali Tandle v. Ranka Lifestyle Ventures underscored that unilateral attempts to hide documents from parties, even under sealed cover, contravene principles of transparency and fairness.
In the Sunjay Kapur case, the court has already expressed concern that listing his assets under a confidential NDA could prevent Samaira and Kiaan, from fully examining or challenging the disclosures, potentially impacting their legal rights.
“How will you all file a written reply to the suit and argue cases if everything is in sealed cover? Tomorrow you will file a written statement and attach the will to it. How will they file their replies in the court,” Justice Singh added.
Legal experts note that while NDAs are common in commercial and contractual contexts, they are almost unheard of in family and inheritance law. The judiciary favours openness in matters affecting heirs’ rights, and even where confidentiality is permitted, courts retain discretion to ensure that no party is unfairly excluded.
At the heart of this case lies a tension that goes beyond just the Kapur family. It highlights the larger debate between privacy and transparency in high-profile inheritance disputes. While one side may argue for confidentiality to protect personal financial details, the courts have repeatedly emphasised that the rights of heirs must take precedence. In this case, Delhi HC has pushed back, reminding Priya that Samaira and Kiaan have a legal right to question the Will and access full information about their father’s estate. The next hearing is expected to test how much confidentiality, if any, can be accommodated without infringing on the legitimate rights of other beneficiaries.
Adding another layer of concern is the revelation made by Samaira and Kiaan’s counsel that the bank accounts purportedly disclosed by Priya Kapur as containing Sunjay’s wealth have now been wiped clean. If true, this raises troubling questions about the whereabouts of the funds and whether Priya’s NDA plea is part of a larger attempt to keep inconvenient truths under wraps. If her request were to be entertained, it could open doors for future litigants to demand secrecy in matters that should be conducted in open court, thereby undermining the principle of fairness in succession law.
For now, the story is clear: there is no precedent of an NDA in a family inheritance case in India. By seeking one, Priya Kapur is not just breaking legal convention but is also inviting scrutiny on whether opacity is being used to tilt the scales of justice.
As the Kapur dispute unfolds, legal observers are closely watching whether the court will entertain the NDA request, and whether the decision could set a precedent for other high-profile inheritance disputes in India. For now, the move has ignited debate over where the line should be drawn between privacy and fairness in family legal battles.