Maharashtra's charity commissioner has officially ordered Tata Trusts to defer board meetings and launched an inquiry into complaints filed by Venu Srinivasan and advocate Katyayani Agrawal, stating that "the issues highlighted by them are serious and require due consideration." In an order signed on Friday by commissioner Amogh Kaloti, the regulator directed the Trusts not to convene any meetings until the inquiry report is submitted. According to ANI, Tata Trusts received an email late evening on Friday forwarding the direction issued by the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, to defer the meeting of the Board of Trustees scheduled for May 16, 2026. The Trusts — the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) and Tata Education and Development Trust — subsequently informed trustees that Saturday's planned sessions had been cancelled following the commissioner's directive. The Trusts maintained that the direction was issued ex parte, with no notice being given to the Sir Ratan Tata Trust and no hearing being afforded to it, before the direction was issued. According to Reuters, the order was issued after complaints triggered an inquiry into the trusts' governance, with one of the complainants being Venu Srinivasan, a senior trustee at Tata Trusts. Tata Trusts released an official statement confirming the deferral, reiterating that the direction was issued ex parte, with no notice being given to the Sir Ratan Tata Trust and no hearing being afforded to it, before the direction was issued. As per thebean.media, the meetings have been deferred with no new date announced, following the commissioner's directive.
The controversy centers around Section 30A(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, amended in 2025, which caps perpetual or life trustees at one-fourth of total trustee strength. Advocate Katyayani Agrawal's complaint dated April 18 alleges that three of the six trustees at Sir Ratan Tata Trust are permanent trustees, potentially breaching this amended provision. Vice-chairman Venu Srinivasan lodged a similar complaint on April 28, alleging violations of the MPT Act. Of SRTT's six trustees, three — Noel Tata, the chairman, Jimmy Tata and Jehangir Jehangir — are perpetual trustees. The remaining three, Srinivasan, Vijay Singh and Darius Khambata, are non-perpetual. Under the amended Act, a trust of this size can have only one perpetual trustee, with Agrawal arguing that perpetual trustees accounting for 50% of the SRTT board — double the statutory cap — decisions taken by the Trust after the law was amended were liable to be treated as invalid. The complaint by Katyayani Agrawal pertains to the composition of the Board of Trustees of Sir Ratan Tata Trust and alleges that three out of six trustees of Sir Ratan Tata Trust, being permanent in nature, are in contravention of Section 30A(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The crux of the issue is the composition of the Sir Ratan Tata Trusts (SRTT) board after Section 30A(2), inserted into the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (MPTA) by an ordinance effective September 1, 2025, capped lifetime trustees at 25% of any trust's total board strength.
The dispute has escalated to the Bombay High Court, where a writ petition seeking a stay on May 16 meetings was withdrawn earlier this week after the court questioned the filing manner. On May 13, the court recorded that representations had been made to the commissioner alleging violations of September 2025 amendments to the MPT Act capping perpetual trustees at 25%. According to ANI, the direction was issued in connection with a complaint filed by Ms. Katyayani Agrawal, a representation by trustee Venu Srinivasan, and an order dated May 13, 2026, of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 16647/2026 relating to Sir Ratan Tata Trust. The petition had sought a direction restraining the same Board meeting based on Agrawal's complaint. The court also recorded the petitioner's contention that convening the Trusts meeting on May 16 would be contrary to the statutory mandate. Tata Trusts confirmed that the Bombay High Court has already disposed the petition that sought a stay on the scheduled meeting of Tata Trusts board. The immediate question is whether Srinivasan's continuation as vice-chairman of Tata Trusts could come under scrutiny after his exit from the Tata Education and Development Trust, where Mehli Mistry voted against the proposal to reappoint Srinivasan and Singh. As per thebean.media, the Bombay High Court had recently disposed of a related petition, while internal disagreements over trustee appointments and board representation continue to intensify.
The controversy has coincided with reported differences within Tata Trusts over board representation at Tata Sons. Saturday's cancelled meeting was to review the Trusts' nominees on the Tata Sons board and take up the matter of Srinivasan and Singh's support for a Tata Sons IPO. The dispute plays out against a broader rift between Noel and Srinivasan over the listing of Tata Sons, with Srinivasan in favour and Noel opposed. Both sit on the Tata Sons board. The latest updates linked to the Tata Trusts are indicative of a growing internal rift with Tata Trustees - Vijay Singh and Venu Srinivasan on one side, and Tata Trusts Chairman Noel Tata on the other. In its latest statement, Tata Trusts noted that SRTT was "not aware of any complaint having been filed by Venu Srinivasan, Trustee, until the receipt of directions from the Charity Commissioner today," adding that Srinivasan had earlier acknowledged notices of board meetings scheduled for May 8 and subsequently on May 16. At present, the Trusts chairman Noel Tata and Srinivasan serve as nominees on the Tata Sons board. In its statement, Tata Trusts said the directions received from the Office of Charity Commissioner are being examined by the Sir Ratan Tata Trust. As per thebean.media, internal disagreements over trustee appointments and board representation continue to intensify, making the situation closely watched across India's corporate sector.
SRTT holds a 23.56% stake in the $180-billion conglomerate's holding company, making the trusts' governance structure particularly significant for the Tata Group's future. The trusts have been ordered not to hold the meeting until an inspector completes the probe and submits a report, as per the commissioner's directive. Commissioner Kaloti warned that allowing the board to meet while the inquiry was pending could create "further complications and multiplicity of proceedings," particularly on questions of the Trust's administration, management or composition. "It would therefore be in the interest of the Trust as well as in the interest of justice that such meeting is deferred," he stated. Tata Trusts responded that they were examining the commissioner's directions, adding that, as they understood it, the directions pertain only to SRTT and were issued ex parte, without prior notice or hearing being afforded to the Trust. The trusts also emphasized that the amendment is prospective in nature and does not impact appointments of perpetual trustees made prior to September 1, 2025, a view they said is supported by legal opinions and clarifications obtained by them. Tata Trusts further noted that the Bombay High Court had on May 13 disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn, confirming the legal proceedings have been concluded. As per thebean.media, the issue has drawn attention because Tata Trusts exercise significant influence over Tata Group's holding structure, making the governance concerns particularly significant for India's corporate sector.
