Tata Trusts drama reaches High Court, violations flagged – what’s at stake?

Alleging that the premier public charitable trust is in clear violation of a 2025 amendment to the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act that caps the number of life trustees, the plea has sought directions from the court to reconstitute the SRTT board.

While the plea is not listed before the court, it is likely to be mentioned for an urgent hearing on Thursday.

What is at stake?

The meeting that was proposed to take place on May 8 is likely to consider key issues on the agenda, including representation on the board of Tata Sons, differing views among trustees regarding the potential listing of Tata Sons, and the issue of perpetual trustees, among others.

Through advocate Rahul Agarwal, Suresh Patilkhede has said that the proposed meeting is unlawful as the instrument of the trust does not provide for the appointment of life trustees. In such cases, the petition said, “the number of life trustees at any point in time cannot exceed one-fourth of the total number of trustees by virtue of the amendment brought under Section 30A(2) [of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act].”

The plea also reported that under the usage and practice of the Trust, out of a total of six trustees, three perpetual trustees (also referred to as life trustees or trustees for life) have been appointed between 1989 and 2019.

At present, the petitioner added that the Trust has six trustees, including Jimmy Naval Tata, Jehangir HC Jehangir, Noel Naval Tata, Venu Srinivasan, Vijay Singh, and senior advocate Darius Khambata. Of these, the petitioner claimed that three are continuing as life trustees, adding that this was “contrary to the mandatory statutory limit” on the number of life trustees.

Patilkhede, who is resident of Thane, further said that the Trust was established in 1919 and is governed by the will of the late Sir Ratanji Jamsetji Tata dated February 20, 1916. He said that as per the will, “no provision or clause provides for appointment of trustees for life or perpetual/life trustees” and any such practice is only a later internal decision of the trustees.

The petition claimed that the Trust is in clear and ongoing violation of the statutory mandate under Section 30A(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 considering the Board’s composition, especially with six trustees on the Board, of which three are classified as life trustees.

No action or inquiry initiated

Patilkhede has said that he had emailed the charity commissioner on April 18, 2026, through his lawyers along with a legal opinion by former Supreme Court judge Justice Krishna Murari, and followed up with a detailed letter on April 30, 2026, but no action or inquiry was initiated.

The plea further claimed “such improper administration of the Trust erodes public confidence”, and any decision taken by the present Board is “void and liable to be set aside”. It sought direction to the charity commissioner to ensure statutory compliance.

The plea also sought an ex parte injunction restraining the Trust and its board from holding the proposed meeting that is scheduled on Friday, or taking any decisions until the Board is reconstituted.