Trusts in Maharashtra will need far sharper succession-planning strategies as the state’s 2025 ordinance to the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act takes effect, reshaping how charitable boards are structured and how leadership continuity is managed, experts said.
With perpetual trustees now capped at 25% of total board strength, legacy institutions must move away from informal succession arrangements and build clearer, more documented systems for rotation, reappointments and future leadership pipelines, they added. The shift is particularly significant for large promoter-linked trusts, where generational continuity and concentrated control have historically guided appointments.
“For entities like Tata and Birla Trusts, which hold significant stakes in listed companies this may lead to less concentrated control and a broader representation,” Ankit Rajgarhia, Designate Partner, Bahuguna Law Associates said.
The cap on lifetime trusteeships also pushes major promoter-linked trusts to rethink how control and continuity are structured. For institutions that relied on entrenched leadership, the 25% limit forces a shift towards more deliberate and forward-looking transition plans, especially where trusts hold influential equity positions in operating companies, like Tata Trusts, which holds majority in Tata Sons, the holding company of the Tata Group.
“The change could dilute entrenched leadership and require careful succession planning,” B Shravanth Shanker, Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India said. This is expected to move trusts towards more formalised policies on trustee renewal, deeper documentation of appointment criteria and clearer pathways for leadership evolution.
The ordinance introduces a uniform definition of perpetual and tenure trustees and limits lifetime positions irrespective of past practice. This means trusts with loosely defined categories or deeds silent on tenure must reassess existing appointments and redesign board architecture. As seen in the restructuring at the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, life appointments are being converted into fixed terms to ensure compliance. The shift marks a decisive departure from decades of internal resolutions and customary practices that had, in effect, institutionalised permanency, observers noted.
One immediate strategic tool emerging for trusts is board expansion. By increasing the total number of trustees, institutions can maintain the maximum permissible number of perpetual trustees while still adhering to the 25% limit. “Boards may strategically increase membership to maximise permissible perpetual trustees,” Gaurav Ghosh co-founder, DLC Law Chambers said. For promoter-driven trusts that hold substantial equity stakes, this recalibration helps balance continuity with the legal requirement for broader representation.
The shift to a cap-driven framework also ensures more regular turnover across boards, reducing the long-standing concentration of authority in a few individuals. “The reform encourages periodic rotation and necessitates well-defined tenure policies for non-lifelong trustees,” Alay Razvi, managing partner, Accord Juris said. Trusts accustomed to long, stable tenures must now prepare for structured reshuffling, including staggered exits and periodic reviews of trustee performance.
The ordinance’s immediate applicability—despite being temporary until ratified—adds urgency to compliance. Resolutions passed after 1 September 2025 may require close scrutiny to ensure they do not conflict with the amended framework, particularly where trusts have attempted to reaffirm or extend lifetime appointments.
Legal experts also point out that resolutions taken before September 1, but implemented after the date, could fall into interpretive grey zones, adding another layer of risk for boards that delay governance redesign. This could have led to Venu Srinivasan’s tenure at SDTT being changed to three years, after he was reappointed for life earlier in October, observers said.
Overall, the cumulative effect is a decisive shift toward structured, transparent and periodically refreshed governance. Trusts now face a dual challenge: preserving their heritage and long-term strategic intent while adapting to a regime designed to broaden accountability, redistribute influence and make leadership transitions more predictable.