The Bombay High Court on Wednesday allowed a petition challenging the composition of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust board to be withdrawn after sharply questioning the petitioner’s legal standing and pointing to gaps in the disclosures made before the court.
The petition had also sought a stay on the board meeting of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT), which was supposed to be held on May 8, but was later rescheduled to May 16.
A vacation bench of Justices Advait Sethna and Sandesh Patil observed that the petitioner, Thane resident Suresh Tulsiram Patilkhede, had relied on representations allegedly submitted before the Charity Commissioner by unidentified third parties rather than complaints filed by him directly. The bench also questioned the urgency of the plea, remarking that it appeared to be attempting to pre-empt possible decisions of the trust before any action had actually been taken.
25% Rule
Senior advocate T Raja, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the SRTT board ought to be reconstituted before any further meetings were held because three of its six trustees were “perpetual” or life trustees. The petition contended that this violated a 2025 amendment to the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, which capped such trustees at 25% of the board unless specifically permitted by the trust deed. Since the trust currently has six trustees, the plea argued that only one could legally serve in perpetuity under Section 30A(2) of the Act.
The judges, however, repeatedly questioned the maintainability of the petition and Patilkhede’s “locus standi” — the legal right to bring a matter before the court. Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Janak Dwarkadas, appearing for some trustees, argued that the petitioner was neither a beneficiary nor a trustee of SRTT and therefore lacked standing to challenge the board’s functioning.
They also argued that treating the 2025 amendment as retrospective rather than prospective could have sweeping consequences for thousands of trusts across Maharashtra.
Singhvi told the court that the Maharashtra government had already clarified through a notification that the amendment would apply prospectively. Dwarkadas added that the SRTT board had held at least four meetings since September 2025 without objection from the petitioner, who had approached the court only now.
Pre-emptive Objections
The bench further noted that the Charity Commissioner was already examining the issue. Justice Patil orally observed that the petition appeared more like a “caveat” — effectively a pre-emptive objection — than a challenge arising from an actual board decision.
Following these observations, Raja sought permission to withdraw the petition, which the court allowed.
Legal experts said the withdrawal does not necessarily foreclose future litigation. “Since the matter was withdrawn and not dismissed on merits, a fresh writ petition may still be possible if the defects identified by the court are addressed,” said Tushar Kumar, advocate at the Supreme Court. He added that any future plea would likely face far stricter scrutiny on urgency, disclosure and maintainability.
The petition had raised objections over the composition of the SRTT board, arguing that the original trust deed and codicil dating back to 1916 did not expressly permit life trustees, while the September 2025 amendment capped perpetual trustees at one-fourth of total board strength.
The dispute first surfaced ahead of a scheduled May 8 SRTT board meeting expected to discuss issues including the possible listing of Tata Sons, the future of trustee Venu Srinivasan on the Tata Sons board, and the reappointment of N Chandrasekaran as chairman of Tata Sons. That meeting was later rescheduled to May 16.
Legal experts said the rescheduled meeting could still face a fresh urgent challenge, although courts would now likely apply a significantly higher threshold before considering any interim relief.