A fresh controversy is brewing within the ongoing dispute at Tata Trusts, with a new representation to the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner alleging that the board composition of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) violates recently amended provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.
SRTT is the second-largest shareholder in Tata Sons, the holding company of the Tata group, with 23.56% stake.
In an email dated April 18, SV & Co, a New Delhi-based law firm sought urgent regulatory intervention, claiming that three of the six current trustees of SRTT are serving as perpetual or lifetime trustees—exceeding the statutory ceiling prescribed under Section 30A(2) of the Act.
The complaint names Noel Tata, Jimmy Tata and Jehangir Jehangir as the trustees in question.
One-Fourth Rule
A similar communication by the firm to Tata Trusts Vice-Chairmen Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh requested a “prompt corrective action” to “obviate the need for external regulatory intervention, thereby safeguarding the reputation of this historic institution.”
“I am writing as a concerned citizen to bring to your urgent notice the blatant and continuing violation of Section 30A(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950… by the Sir Ratan Tata Trust,” the email addressed to the charity commissioner stated.
The representation has urged the commissioner to immediately examine the composition of the trust’s board and direct compliance with the amended law.
Tata Trusts did not respond to emailed queries until press time.
The complainant has specifically sought directions to reduce the number of perpetual trustees to within the prescribed limit—no more than one-fourth of the total board strength. In a six-member board, this would translate to a maximum of one perpetual trustee. It has also called for consequential action, including the removal of excess lifetime trustees or fresh appointments, to restore compliance.
Governance Shift
Section 30A(2), introduced through the Maharashtra Public Trusts (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025 and subsequently enacted, provides that where a trust deed does not explicitly allow for perpetual trustees, their number cannot exceed one-fourth of the total trustee strength.
With SRTT currently having six trustees, the representation argues that the presence of three lifetime trustees results in 50% perpetual representation—double the permissible cap.
This development follows changes made last November after the Ordinance came into effect, when Srinivasan’s life trusteeship on the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT) was curtailed to a three-year term, leaving Noel Tata as the sole lifetime trustee. SRTT and SDTT together hold a majority stake—around 52%—in Tata Sons, the holding company of the Tata group.
The latest representation comes shortly after two earlier objections filed by former trustee Mehli Mistry with the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner. One pertained to the eligibility of Srinivasan and Singh to the Bai Hirabai Trust, while another flagged governance concerns at SDTT.
The new complaint further argues that the SRTT trust deed, governed by the will of Sir Ratan Tata, does not contain any enabling provision permitting perpetual trustees beyond the statutory cap. On that basis, it contends that the current board structure is inconsistent with the amended law and requires correction.
Framing the issue as one of governance, the representation states that the legislative intent behind the amendment was to prevent concentration of control among a small group of lifetime trustees, enhance accountability, and safeguard the public charitable character of trusts managing significant assets.
It also warns that any delay in regulatory intervention could allow an allegedly unlawful arrangement to persist and erode public confidence in the oversight framework.