The Maharashtra Charity Commissioner's Office has issued a warning to Tata Trusts that additional orders may be issued to prevent further violations of rules and protect the interests of the public trust and its beneficiaries. According to reports from Mint, Reuters, CNBC-TV18, and Moneylife, Commissioner Amogh S Kaloti ordered an immediate inquiry into the composition of the Board of Trustees of Sir Ratan TATA Trust following alleged violations of perpetual trusteeship rules. The Commissioner's office has warned that any other appropriate orders can be issued to prevent further violation of the rules. Srinivasan's complaint was received via email on 28 April, with the Commissioner stating in a letter dated 15 May that the issues highlighted by complainants are serious and require due consideration. Patikhede's complaint dated April 18, 2026, filed by advocate Katyayani Agrawal on behalf of her client, also alleging similar violations by the Sir Ratan Tata Trust regarding the composition of its board of trustees. The Assistant Charity Commissioner (ACC) had already directed an inspector-level inquiry under Section 37 of the Act, with the latest direction issued by Commissioner Kaloti following complaints alleging non-compliance with Section 30A(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act relating to the composition of trustees on the board. A report under Section 39 is currently awaited following the inspector inquiry ordered on May 13.
Following the Commissioner's order, Tata Trusts has deferred the board meeting indefinitely after initially postponing it from May 8 to May 16. As reported by Mint, Reuters, CNBC-TV18, and Moneylife, the meeting was originally planned to review nominee directors on the Tata Sons board, which would have significant implications for the conglomerate's governance structure. The trusts were caught off guard by the late Friday communication not to hold the meeting, with the Commissioner invoking powers under Section 36A(1) and other provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act to direct the board deferment. In an email to the trustees, the trust has not given any reason for the indefinite postponement of the meeting. The order states that permitting the board meeting to proceed during the pendency of the inquiry could complicate matters further, especially if important decisions concerning administration, management or board composition were taken. The order emphasizes that "it would therefore be in the interest of the Trust as well as interest of justice that such meeting is deferred till submission of report of the Inspector inquiry ordered by ACC."
The Commissioner's order includes mandatory compliance with Section 30A(2) by reducing the number of perpetual trustees to not more than one-fourth of the total strength. According to Mint, in the case of Ratan Tata Trust, there can only be one perpetual trustees in a board of six. The Commissioner's office has stated that action could include removal of excess perpetual trustees or/and appointment of trustees as per law. Patikhede's petition before the charity commissioner also alleged that 50% of its six trustees are life trustees, whereas the rules permit only 25%. Three of the six trustees - Noel Tata, Jimmy Tata (Ratan Tata's brother), and Jehangir HC Jehangir - may need to step down and have their trusteeship renewed through trustee voting. Two of the three perpetual trustees - Noel Tata, Jimmy Tata (Ratan Tata's brother), and Jehangir HC Jehangir - may need to step down and have their trusteeship renewed through trustee voting. The controversy centers around complaints submitted by advocate Katyayani Agrawal and trustee Venu Srinivasan, with the complaints urging the Charity Commissioner to investigate whether the board structure of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust violates statutory provisions limiting the number of perpetual trustees. The recent amendment to the Act introduces a statutory cap on the number of perpetual (or life) trustees allowed on the board, with both complainants seeking urgent intervention by the Charity Commissioner and calling for corrective action, including a reduction in the number of perpetual trustees and restoration of legal compliance.
The Mumbai Charity Commissioner's order to stop the May 16 meeting assumes significant importance as Tata Trusts holds 66.4% stake in Tata Sons, the holding company of the salt-to-software conglomerate. As reported by Mint, Reuters, CNBC-TV18, and Moneylife, the meeting could have resulted in Tata Trusts vice-chairman Venu Srinivasan being evicted as nominee director, leaving only Tata Trusts chairman Noel Tata as the nominee director. Tata Sons chairman N Chandrasekaran's second five-year term ends in February 2027, and while his third term was discussed in the previous board meeting in February 2026, no decision was taken after Noel Tata raised performance issues linked to several Tata entities. Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT) and SRTT control 51.4% of Tata Sons, while six smaller trusts own another 14.36%, taking the total ownership in the apex Tata company to 65.9%. The regulatory intervention lays bare a deepening rift over whether to take Tata Sons public, with the company facing regulatory pressure to list considering its large asset holdings. Some investors see going public as a needed step to expand further, but Noel Tata opposes taking public the parent company of the conglomerate run by his family established in 1868. Trustees Srinivasan and Vijay Singh intend to push Tata Sons for a public listing, aligning with Reserve Bank of India mandates for large shadow banks. The RBI has informally signaled it won't grant Tata Sons an exemption from listing requirements.
The current crisis has intensified following multiple legal challenges and governance disputes across Tata Trusts entities. Over the last month, three legal notices have been served on Tata Trusts, seeking an adjournment of the Tata Trust meeting. Lawyer Katyayani Agrawal had complained in April that three among its six trustees—Noel Tata, Pune philanthropist Jehangir HC Jehnagir, and Jimmy Tata—were permanent trustees, alleging violation of rules that capped the number of lifetime trustees at a fourth of the total number of trustees. This was followed by a complaint before the Bombay High Court, including a vacation bench, seeking a directive to stop the Tata Trusts from convening a meeting, with both the Bombay High Court and the two-judge bench refusing to pass any order. Last week, another individual, Sunil Tulsiram Patilkhede, through his lawyer, sent a legal notice to the six trustees of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT), which owns 23.56% of Tata Sons, concerning alleged wrongdoing in the transfer of shares from one of the Trusts to Late Ratan Tata's father in 1989. At the Tata Education and Development Trust, Mehli Mistry voted against the proposal to reappoint Srinivasan and Singh, whose terms expire on May 11, with the trust's board having five trustees requiring unanimous approval for agenda items. The order also refers to observations made by the Bombay High Court in a writ petition heard on 13 May 2026, while the Court did not entertain the petition because the petitioner himself had not filed the earlier representations, it acknowledged that complaints regarding alleged statutory violations had indeed been submitted before the Charity Commissioner. The SDTT board includes Noel Tata, Venu Srinivasan, Vijay Singh, Darius Khambata, Neville N. Tata, and Bhaskar Bhat, while the SRTT board includes Noel Tata, Venu Srinivasan, Vijay Singh, Jimmy Tata, Jehangir H.C. Jehangir, and Darius Khambata.
