Tata Trusts, in a statement issued late Friday night, maintained that the amendment to the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, that limits the number of lifetime trustees applies prospectively and did not affect appointments made before the law came into force on September 1, 2025.
“It is the understanding of the Tata Trusts that the said amendment is prospective in nature and does not affect the appointments of perpetual trustees made prior to its coming into force,” the statement said, adding that the position was supported by legal opinions and clarifications obtained by the Trusts.
An Ex parte Directive
The statement came in response to the Charity Commissioner of Maharashtra’s direction to defer the May 16 board meeting. The Trusts further said that the direction had been issued ex parte, arguing that no notice or hearing had been granted to Sir Ratan Tata Trust before the order was passed. The Trusts received the communique from the Charity Commissioner on the eve of the proposed May 16 meeting.
The philanthropic body that holds 66% in Tata Sons said it had received an email forwarding the Charity Commissioner’s direction to defer the scheduled board meeting. The Trusts said the order referred to complaints filed by advocate Katyayani Agrawal and trustee Venu Srinivasan, along with the Bombay High Court’s May 13 order in a writ petition concerning the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT).
“Given these facts, we understand that the direction issued is only in respect of Sir Ratan Tata Trust,” the Trusts said in the statement.
Lifetime Trustee Legal Loophole
The Trusts further said that Agrawal’s complaint pertained to the composition of the SRTT board and alleged that three of the six trustees were “permanent” or perpetual trustees in violation of amendments introduced through the Maharashtra Public Trusts (Second) Amendment Act, 2025.
The amended law caps perpetual or life trustees at one-fourth of the total trustee strength of a public trust.
The Trusts also pointed out that the Bombay High Court had disposed of the related writ petition as withdrawn on May 13. The petition had sought restraint on the same board meeting.
“Sir Ratan Tata Trust was not aware of any complaint having been filed by Mr. Venu Srinivasan, Trustee, until the receipt of directions from the Charity Commissioner today,” the Trusts said in its statement adding that Srinivasan had previously acknowledged the notice of the board meeting originally scheduled to be held on May 8 and the notice of the meeting rescheduled to May 16.
“The directions received from the Office of Charity Commissioner are being examined by the Sir Ratan Tata Trust,” the statement added.
Earlier on Friday, Charity Commissioner Amogh S. Kaloti directed Tata Trusts to defer the May 16 meeting and further instructed trustees not to hold any such meeting until submission of an inspector inquiry report into complaints surrounding the trust’s board composition.
The regulator observed that proceeding with the meeting and taking “important decisions regarding the administration, management or composition of the Trust” during the pendency of the inquiry could create “further complications and multiplicity of proceedings”.
The meeting had assumed significance because it was expected to discuss several sensitive matters, including Tata Sons’ potential listing, trustee alignments within the Tata Trusts ecosystem, and the reappointment of Tata Sons chairman N Chandrasekaran for a third term.