Overview
- Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan invoked concepts such as gotra change and kanyadaan to underscore the cultural context of Hindu succession.
- The court said it was prima facie not inclined to invalidate the provisions and warned that hard facts should not lead to bad law or disrupt long‑standing social structures.
- The bench referred the parties before it to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre to seek settlements while keeping the broader constitutional questions open.
- Petitioners, represented by senior advocates including Kapil Sibal and Menaka Guruswamy, argued the scheme is exclusionary and discriminatory against women.
- The Centre, through ASG KM Nataraj, defended Sections 15 and 16 as well‑crafted, noting that under Section 15(1)(b) a childless Hindu woman’s intestate property can pass to her husband’s heirs before her natal family.