The Maharashtra State Charity Commissioner has directed Tata Trusts to defer its board meeting indefinitely following an order issued on May 15, 2026. According to the latest order, Charity Commissioner Amogh S. Kaloti stated that "A direction is issued to the Board of Trustees of Tata Trusts to defer the meeting of the Board of Trustees scheduled to be held on 16-05-2026. It is further directed not to hold any such meeting till submission of report of Inspector inquiry." The order comes after complaints were raised regarding the structure of the board of trustees at Sir Ratan Tata Trust. The board meeting was originally scheduled for May 8, 2026, but was postponed to May 16 without assigning any reason, and has now been deferred indefinitely. As per the latest communication, the issues highlighted by the complainants are serious and require due consideration, with the Charity Commissioner noting that any major decisions taken during the inquiry pendency could complicate proceedings. Lawyer Katyayani Agrawal, who sought the charity commissioner's intervention, confirmed receiving the communication directing Tata Trusts to defer all future board meetings, including one scheduled today. The Charity Commissioner's order stated that an Inspector inquiry into these complaints has already been ordered and a report of the inquiry is awaited.
The matter involves concerns over compliance with provisions under Section 30A(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, which was amended in September 2025. The Maharashtra Public Trusts (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025, states that the number of perpetual trustees cannot exceed 25% (one-fourth) of the total board strength. According to the latest order, the Sir Ratan Tata Trust currently has six trustees, of which three, Jimmy Naval Tata, Jehangir HC Jehangir, and Noel Naval Tata — are lifetime trustees. This reportedly takes the share of perpetual trustees to 50 per cent, exceeding the permissible limit under the amended law. The dispute stems from representations filed by Advocate Katyayani Agrawal on April 18, 2026, and a separate complaint by Venu Srinivasan, Trustee of the Sir Ratan TATA Trust, dated April 28, 2026. The Charity Commissioner has specifically directed that the Trust comply with mandatory conditions by reducing the number of perpetual trustees to not more than one-fourth of total strength - a maximum of one perpetual trustee in a Board of six. The order also urged the Charity Commissioner to take all consequential actions, including removal of excess perpetual trustees and appointment of trustees in accordance with law, as may be necessary to restore legality.
Tata Trusts Vice Chairman Venu Srinivasan represented the organization before the Charity Commissioner, as reported by ET Now. Advocate Katyayani Agrawal, who had earlier sought urgent intervention from the Charity Commissioner, confirmed receiving the communication directing Tata Trusts to defer the meeting. In her representation dated April 18, Agrawal had requested the Charity Commissioner to exercise statutory powers under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and ensure compliance with the amended provisions governing trust boards. According to the latest order, the office of the Charity Commissioner had forwarded Agrawal's complaint to the Assistant Charity Commissioner (ACC), who on May 13, 2026 directed the concerned Inspector to conduct an inquiry and submit a report. Additionally, a complaint of similar nature was received on April 28, 2026 by Venu Srinivasan, Trustee of the Sir Ratan TATA Trust, which was also placed before the ACC who directed to keep it with the pending proceedings. The ACC on Friday placed these complaints and the order of the Bombay High Court before the Charity Commissioner. The Bombay High Court did not entertain the petition for the reason that the representations referred to by the petitioner were not made by him or on his behalf, but by some other/third party.
The legal proceedings have seen recent developments in the Bombay High Court. On May 13, the Bombay High Court disposed of a related writ petition as withdrawn that had sought to restrain the same board meeting on the basis of Agrawal's complaint, as reported by ANI. This development occurred after the Bombay High Court earlier this week disposed of as withdrawn a petition seeking to restrain the same board meeting, according to ANI. The Charity Commissioner's direction also referred to a separate complaint allegedly filed by trustee Venu Srinivasan in connection with the board meeting, though Tata Trusts stated it was unaware of such a complaint until receiving the Commissioner's communication. The Charity Commissioner's order stated that an Inspector inquiry into these complaints has already been ordered and a report of the inquiry is awaited. Section 36A(1) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act mandates the trustee of every public trust to, administer the affairs of the trust in accordance with lawful directions which the Charity Commissioner may issue.
Tata Trusts has strongly contested the regulatory action, stating that the order is "ex-parte" and pertains only to Sir Ratan Tata Trust. According to their statement, "The directions received from the Office of Charity Commissioner are being examined by the Sir Ratan Tata Trust. We understand that the direction is only in respect of SRTT. It is reiterated that the direction was issued ex parte, with no notice being given to SRTT and no hearing being afforded to it, before the direction was issued." The meeting on Saturday was particularly important as issues such as Tata Sons' listing, reappointment of Tata Sons' chairman N Chandrasekaran and other nominee directors were reported to be discussed. Tata Trusts noted that the Charity Commissioner's directions are being examined by the Sir Ratan Tata Trust, as stated in their recent communication to ANI. Tata Trusts owns 66 per cent of Tata Sons, the group's holding company, and the meeting on Saturday was important because issues such as Tata Sons' listing, reappointment of Tata Sons' chairman N Chandrasekaran and other nominee directors was reported to be discussed. In case, a meeting of the Board of Trustees is called and any important decisions regarding the administration, management or composition of the Trust are taken during pendency of the said inquiry, that would lead to further complications and multiplicity of the proceedings.
