No room for non-disclosure in family disputes, Delhi HC signals in Sunjay Kapur case

The court’s decision to allow Priya Kapur to furnish the disputed Will and asset list in a sealed cover came with a clear caveat: Priya’s earlier demand for a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) binding Sunjay Kapur’s second wife’s children, Samaira and Kiaan, would not be entertained

In a case that has captured headlines for weeks, Friday’s hearing in the Delhi High Court brought into sharp focus a larger principle, whether secrecy has any place in inheritance battles.

The Court’s decision to allow Priya Kapur to furnish the disputed Will and asset list in a sealed cover came with a clear caveat: Priya’s earlier demand for a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) binding Sunjay Kapur’s second wife’s children, Samaira and Kiaan, would not be entertained.

During the hearing the court orally said that it will not be passing an order for “confidentiality club” after the counsels agreed to not disclose contents of the list of assets and information regarding the case to the media.

The NDA issue has been the most contested part of this case. Justice Jyoti Singh expressed strong reservations on Thursday, saying such an order “may be problematic” because it could deprive the children of their right to question disclosures. “How will you file a written reply and argue cases if everything is in sealed cover?” she asked. “If they are bound by confidentiality, how will they ever defend their case?”

By Friday, Priya Kapur had stepped back from her NDA push, agreeing to sealed cover submissions instead, a mechanism that shields sensitive documents from public scrutiny while allowing access to the parties involved. For Samaira and Kiaan, it means they won’t be restricted by contractual secrecy, preserving their ability to verify and challenge the Will. The duo, who have challenged the legitimacy of the Will and accused Priya Kapur of wiping clean Sunjay Kapur’s bank accounts, termed it a “bogus Will”.

Justice Singh ordered that an inventory of Sunjay Kapur’s movable and immovable properties be submitted to the court and shared with his mother Rani Kapur and his children from his first marriage. While directing that these disclosures not be made public, the court firmly disapproved of Priya’s request for an NDA, a mechanism virtually unheard of in Indian succession law.

“The court emphasised that heirs have an unquestionable right to know the details of an estate they may be entitled to. They have no issues disclosing the assets. All that was said, let this not be made public. You have the right to know,” Justice Singh noted.

Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing Samaira and Kiaan, stressed in court: “According to this patently bogus Will, I have been deprived of everything. Two accounts have been wiped clean and 6% share has been appropriated. For me, there is nothing confidential. What is there to hide?”

The NDA question has broader implications. Even in India’s largest inheritance disputes, NDAs have never been permitted. Sealed covers remain a judicial mechanism, not a private confidentiality pact. Friday’s decision reinforces this principle: while Priya Kapur can protect certain details from public view, she cannot silence the heirs whose claims depend on full disclosure.

The Delhi High Court’s caution on NDAs sends a clear message that inheritance is about fairness, and secrecy cannot be the currency of justice.

Talking to Bizz Buzz, Akshat Khetan, Founder of AU Corporate Advisory & Legal Services, observed, “The Court has struck the right balance, sensitive details need not enter the public domain, but heirs cannot be kept in the dark. By allowing sealed cover filings while rejecting Priya Kapur’s NDA demand, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that heirs have the right to know what constitutes their father’s estate without involving the media unnecessarily.”

Sujit Lahoti, Managing Partner at Sujit Lahoti & Associates, added: “Inheritance disputes cannot be run like boardroom negotiations. Delhi High Court made it plain that heirs must be able to question every disclosure. NDAs in succession cases would be legally unsound and practically unworkable.”