In yet another dramatic turn of events in the Tata saga, the Charity Commissioner of Maharashtra has directed the board of Tata Trusts to defer its scheduled meeting on Saturday escalating the governance battle surrounding the group’s philanthropic holding structure and throwing key strategic discussions into uncertainty.
“In exercise of the powers conferred upon the Charity Commissioner i.e., the undersigned by Section 36A(1) and other provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 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”, he order issued on Friday said.
It has also been directed that the Trusts should not hold any such meeting till “submission of report of Inspector inquiry,” Amogh S Kaloti wrote in an order issued on Friday.
He added that Section 36A(1) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act mandates that trustees of every public trust must administer the affairs of the trust in accordance with lawful directions which the Charity Commissioner may issue.
Email queries sent to Tata Trusts did not elicit a response till press time.
Internal Ruptures
The regulator’s intervention follows complaints received from advocate Katyayani Agrawal (on April 18) and Venu Srinivasan (on April 28) himself, both of whom raised concerns over the composition of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust board and its compliance with amendments to the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act governing “perpetual” or life trustees.
The complaint by Tata Trusts Vice-Chairman Venu Srinivasan is surprising as this is probably the first time a sitting Trustee has alleged wrongdoing at the Trusts. Srinivasan is the Trusts’ nominee on the board of Tata Sons.
The Charity Commissioner referred to the Bombay High Court’s May 13 order, which recorded that a Tata Trusts board meeting was scheduled for May 16 and noted the petitioner’s argument that holding the meeting could violate provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act relating to trustee composition.
While The Bombay High Court did not entertain the petition Suresh Tulsiram Patikhede because the representations referred to in the case had been made by third parties and not by the petitioner himself, it had noted that the matter was already raised with the Charity Commissioner’s office.
The Charity Commissioner’s office said the complaint was forwarded to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, who on May 13 ordered an inspector-led inquiry into the matter. The inquiry report is still awaited. The office also received a similar complaint from SRTT trustee Venu Srinivasan on April 28. This complaint was tagged with the ongoing proceedings.
High-Stakes Agenda Halted
In the directive, the Charity Commissioner further noted that the complaints made by advocate and Srinivasan raised serious issues that required proper examination.
The communication assumes significance because the meeting was expected to take up several sensitive matters, including Tata Sons’ potential listing, the future role of trustee Venu Srinivasan within the Tata Trusts ecosystem, and the reappointment of N Chandrasekaran as chairman of Tata Sons for a third term.
The Charity Commissioner observed that if the board proceeded with the meeting and took “important decisions regarding the administration, management or composition of the Trust”, it could lead to “further complications and multiplicity of proceedings”.
The order further stated that “it would therefore be in the interest of the Trust as well as interest of justice that such meeting is deferred” until the inquiry report is submitted.
The May 16 meeting itself had already become a focal point in the widening tensions within the Tata Trusts fold. An earlier version of the meeting, originally scheduled for May 8, had also been deferred amid mounting legal and governance disputes.
At the centre of the friction is the question of Tata Sons’ future ownership structure and whether the holding company should eventually pursue a listing route. Trustees Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh are understood to favour exploring a listing, while Tata Trusts chairman Noel Tata is seen as opposed to such a move.
The divergence has become increasingly significant because Tata Trusts collectively hold a 66% stake in Tata Sons and remain central to strategic decisions involving the holding company.
The board was also expected to discuss Srinivasan’s own future role within the trusts network after a series of recent exits and non-reappointments from allied Tata Trust entities.
Questions around Chandrasekaran’s continuation as Tata Sons chairman were also expected to feature in the discussions. While he has overseen expansion across aviation, electronics and digital businesses, losses at Air India and Tata Digital have reportedly drawn scrutiny from sections of the trust leadership.