On a quiet Sunday afternoon, while most people were celebrating Akshaya Tritiya, a set of emails addressed to senior Tata trusts functionaries and the charity commissioner of Maharashtra, triggered a fresh escalation over trusteeship issues at the Tata trusts. The Tata trusts form India’s largest philanthropic empire and remain unique: they are allowed to hold shares in business enterprises and control 66% of Tata Sons, the holding company of the US$180bn (billion) Tata group.
In the midst of already fractious power struggles within the group, advocate Katyayani Agrawal of SV & Co, sent identical emails to key trustees as well as the charity commissioner, on behalf of justice T Raja, former acting chief justice of the Madras High Court. The letters demand immediate regulatory intervention and the convening of urgent board meetings to rectify the violation of Section 30A(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. They were backed by a 19-page legal opinion from former Supreme Court judge justice Krishna Murari which states that the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) is operating in open breach of the law. According to justice Murari, the practice of declaring certain individuals ‘Trustees for Life’ is mere usage, not statutory authorisation.
SRTT, the largest of the Tata trusts, has a six-trustee board that includes three lifetime trustees: Jimmy N Tata (appointed 1989), Jehangir HC Jehangir and Noel N Tata (both appointed 2019). This is double the statutory ceiling of one-fourth (maximum one lifetime trustee). Sir Ratan Tata’s 1919 Will and codicil contain no overriding provision. Justice Murari’s opinion says that the current composition violates the 2025 amendment and must be rectified immediately by reducing the number of lifetime trustees to one. The charity commissioner has been asked to order an immediate inquiry, remove the excess lifetime trustees and pass any orders necessary to restore legality. Failure to act, says the lawyer’s letter, will ‘erode public confidence’.
Implications of the Challenge
This is the first time the storied Tata group, credited with exceptionally high governance standards, has faced such a direct legal challenge on trustee composition. When Mehli Mistry, a former trustee and close confidant of late Ratan Tata, filed a similar complaint about the appointment of non-Parsi trustees (Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh) to the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution, many dismissed it as personal pique after he was voted out in October 2025 because of lack of unanimity over his reappointment. (Read: Non-Parsi Trustee Row Exposes Noel Tata’s First Major Leadership Trial).
This time, however, the questions are coming from a former judge. When asked about his intervention as a unconnected party, justice T Raja replied to me via WhatsApp: “The purpose of this effort is to prompt voluntary compliance of the provisions of Maharashtra Public Trust Act, more importantly Sec 30A(2), failing which the laudable object of The Sir Ratan Tata Trust will be hijacked by anyone, resultantly the Charity Commissioner can exercise his suo moto powers conferred under Sec 55 (2) & (3) of the Act… Even a third party can bring to the notice of the Charity Commissioner by virtue of Section 41B & 41D of the Act. Hence our representation is legally maintainable.”
Although justice Raja’s intervention is curious, the real story is deeper. Enforcing the September 2025 Maharashtra amendment will reset how the Tata trusts function. The amendment creates two categories: tenure trustees (five-year terms, renewable only by unanimous vote) and perpetual trustees (capped at 25% of the board). It means that only one member of SRTT’s board can remain perpetual. While this may not disrupt day-to-day operations, reverting Noel Tata from lifetime to tenure trustee would require him to seek unanimous re-election every five years. Since he is the chairman of Tata trusts, this would be embarrassing and weaken the narrative of a ‘Tata family anchor’ at the helm. It also means that a single dissenting trustee could potentially oust him, doesn’t matter that he is late Ratan Tata’s half-brother.
The 2025 Maharashtra amendment capping lifetime trustees at 25% was introduced precisely to address concerns that too many lifetime trustees in public charitable trusts holding vast assets risk turning them into quasi-private fiefdoms and concentrate power in a small, self-perpetuating group. Global best practice in foundations also favours term limits to safeguard the public character of the trust.
Large contemporary vehicles of philanthropy set up by businessmen outside Maharashtra, such as Infosys Foundation, Azim Premji Trust, Shiv Nadar Foundation and Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies, have adopted flexible, family-influenced or professional boards with natural rotation, thus avoiding the rigid lifetime model the Tata trusts inherited from 1919.
Would these businessmen be willing to relinquish family influence, as is expected from the Tatas now? After all, it is individual families that have committed a large chunk of their wealth to philanthropy and it is unfair to expect that they will have no say in its spending. That may also be a question that determines future action or litigation on this issue.
Meanwhile, in response to Mehli Mistry’s allegation, the trustees of the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution (Bai Hirabai Trust), have already decided “to adopt proceedings before the appropriate authority for alteration of restrictive clauses in respect of eligibility of Trustees,” says a media report.
Interestingly, a senior Tata trustee, speaking off-the-record, pointed out that the legal amendment is non-negotiable and tenures can be renewed any number of times. In his view, “I think it’s good to have not more than one life trustee, or none for that matter!”
The timing of justice Raja’s intervention is intriguing and adds to the uncertainty. It comes just as Noel Tata has raised serious questions as a condition for N Chandrasekaran’s third term as chairman of Tata Sons. Mr Tata had flagged widening losses at the holding company, with Air India alone having posted a record loss of over ₹22,000 crore (US$2.4bn) for FY25-26 which is far higher than the internal estimate of US$1.6bn shared earlier.
The combined losses of Tata Sons’ new ventures are now projected to touch ₹29,000 crore this year which is almost five times the original forecast. The ballooning losses, primarily from Air India and Tata Digital, have clearly rattled the Tata trusts, especially as its star performer TCS already faces slowdown.
Noel Tata has demanded a clear turnaround strategy for the bleeding businesses, opposed fresh debt and sought a firm commitment that Tata Sons would remain unlisted.
The latter, however, is an issue that has isolated Noel Tata and may be out of the group’s hands. The Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI’s) draft amendment on non-banking finance companies (NBFC) has again listed Tata Sons as an upper layer NBFC which will require mandatory listing. Although Tata Sons had expected to dodge the requirement by going private, central banking sources say that RBI may insist on it, especially given the group’s present turmoil (Read: Tata Sons Listing Pressure Momentum: Noel Tata Is Isolated on Keeping It Private?)
There is also the matter of working out an amicable settlement with the Mistry family which is only likely if Tata Sons is listed and allows the group to unlock the value of their 18% stake.
It remains to be seen whether the Tata trusts and Tata Sons opt for credible reform, stability and amicable settlement of differences, or end up embroiled in internal turmoil in the middle of a difficult global situation for all businesses. The famous ‘governance premium’ enjoyed by the Tatas for over a century will be seriously tested in the coming days.
Infosys Foundation, Azim Premji Trust, Shiv Nadar Foundation and Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies are purely charitable trusts and do not hold any interest in any business run by their promoters/trustees and therefore no question of any tussle. Here the main question is who controls and governs the vast Tata Group business and its assets. Ratan Tata fought many battles in his early years at Tata Sons and now Noel Tata is also fighting such battles. I do not understand why such situation develops and why, when the storm has faded, lifetime corrective measures (legally) are not taken immediately after that.
It is intriguing as to how all these shortcomings in legal structure of the trusts escaped attention of JRD Tata, Ratan Tata. Ratan Tata was wise enough to strengthen cross shareholding of Tata companies to thwart the attempts of takeover from which Tata companies were saved for years.
The US-Israel war on Iran has entered the fourth week and the Indian benchmark indices are down by 8%. The first-order effects of the war are familiar to all of us, with the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed. Of India’s imports,...
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
1-year online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
30-day online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
Complete access to Moneylife archives since inception ( till the date of your subscription )
