The Bombay High Court could emerge as the next battleground in the escalating conflict at Tata Trusts after Maharashtra’s Charity Commissioner directed the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) to defer its May 16 board meeting pending an inquiry into alleged violations of trustee composition rules under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.
The direction, issued under Section 36A(1) of the Act, followed complaints by advocate Katyayani Agrawal and SRTT trustee Venu Srinivasan regarding the number of “perpetual” or life trustees on the board. The Charity Commissioner observed that any decisions taken during the pendency of the inquiry could lead to further complications and multiplicity of proceedings.
While queries sent to SRTT on its next steps remained unanswered, Tata Trusts, in its
statement issued on May 15, maintained that the direction had been passed ex parte without notice or hearing to SRTT. The Trusts also argued that the amendment to Section 30A(2), which caps perpetual trustees at one-fourth of board strength, was prospective in nature and did not apply to appointments made before September 1, 2025.
Urgent Writ Jurisdiction
Legal experts said the Bombay High Court appeared to be the most immediate and effective forum available to the Trust if it chose to challenge the direction.
“The principal issues likely to arise would concern the ex parte nature of the directions, the absence of an opportunity of hearing to the Trust prior to issuance thereof, and the scope and manner of exercise of powers under Section 36A(1) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950,” said Tushar Kumar, advocate, Supreme Court of India.
Experts added that the matter would require immediate legal action if the Trust intended to challenge the Charity Commissioner’s directive. “This is not really a slow statutory-appeal situation. When a trust meeting is stopped ex parte on the eve of the meeting, the matter becomes an urgent writ-court issue,” said Rishabh Gandhi, founder, Rishabh Gandhi and Advocates.
He added that the High Court would likely examine whether the Charity Commissioner had jurisdiction to issue such a direction, whether procedural fairness was followed and whether the restraint was proportionate to the pending inquiry.
Regulatory Scrutiny Ambiguity
The Charity Commissioner’s May 15 direction has also triggered questions over whether the regulatory scrutiny could extend to other Tata Trusts entities, including the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT).
Experts said the present controversy appeared largely SRTT-centric because both the complaints and earlier Bombay High Court proceedings related specifically to the composition of the SRTT board.
However, both Gandhi and Kumar noted that while the substance of the order focused on SRTT, the drafting referred more broadly to “TATA Trusts”, creating ambiguity over the scope of the direction. Kumar added that while no express legal restraint currently operated against SDTT, future scrutiny could arise if separate complaints or proceedings were initiated.
In April, former trustee Mehli Mistry filed a change objection before the Charity Commissioner, alleging governance lapses at SDTT. The trust — which holds nearly 28% in Tata Sons and is its single-largest shareholder — has so far not filed a caveat before the Bombay High Court in relation to Mistry’s objection.
The role of Venu Srinivasan has also come under scrutiny after the Charity Commissioner’s order disclosed that the regulator had received a complaint from him on April 28.
Tata Trusts said it had no prior knowledge of Srinivasan’s complaint and noted that he had acknowledged notices for both the originally scheduled May 8 meeting and the rescheduled May 16 meeting.
Legal experts said there was nothing inherently unlawful about a sitting trustee approaching the Charity Commissioner if governance or legal concerns existed within the trust. However, they added that any further action by the Trust would depend on whether issues such as breach of fiduciary duty, confidentiality or mala fide intent could be established.
The dispute is also expected to become an early test case on how the 2025 amendments to Maharashtra’s public trust law apply to legacy charitable trusts and long-standing governance structures.