Clarity on Chandrasekaran’s departure must now be followed by a credible and orderly succession

Though Chandrasekaran’s letter referred only to “one of the board members”, it is by now well known that the proposal stalled after Tata Trusts Chairman Noel Tata withheld his support. Whatever the merits of the underlying differences — over the possible listing of Tata Sons, losses at Air India and digital businesses, or capital allocation — a chairman managing an empire of this scale cannot function effectively while his authority remains in suspense.

With the matter now settled, Tata Sons has time to conduct an orderly succession. That the matter was allowed to become a public spectacle is unfortunate. Any board member is entitled to scrutinise the chairman’s performance and question investments that have yet to deliver adequate returns.

Equally, a chairman who has led the group for nearly a decade was entitled to a prompt decision on whether he continued to enjoy the confidence required for another term. Instead, the issue remained unresolved for six months after being deferred in February, leaving Chandrasekaran to lead with his future visibly uncertain.

Departures are inevitable in every institution, however successful the incumbent, and differences over succession are hardly unusual. But the Tatas, with their reputation for stewardship and institutional continuity, should have set a better example. Both sides should have resolved the matter privately and much earlier.

The public airing of differences recalled the bruising 2016 removal of Cyrus Mistry — precisely the kind of governance spectacle the group should have avoided repeating.

Chandrasekaran will nevertheless leave an impressive legacy. Handpicked by Ratan Tata following Mistry’s ouster, he took charge in 2017 as the first non-founder and non-heir to lead a major Indian conglomerate. It was a significant experiment in professional management, made more challenging by the bitter leadership crisis that preceded his appointment.

He restored cohesion and strategic direction. Tata Motors and Jaguar Land Rover recovered, Tata Steel was restructured, Indian Hotels was revived, and Tata Consumer Products emerged as a more focused consumer platform. Several listed group companies created substantial shareholder wealth during much of his tenure.

He also pushed the group into businesses that could shape its next phase — semiconductors, electronics manufacturing, electric vehicles, batteries, and renewable energy — and brought Air India back into the Tata fold. The record is, of course, not flawless. Air India remains a difficult turnaround, digital ventures have accumulated large losses, and TCS, the group’s principal source of dividends, faces disruption from artificial intelligence.

Some capital-intensive bets may take years to justify themselves. Yet these problems should not obscure the scale of the transformation he led.

The priority now must be the future. Tata Sons should begin a transparent, time-bound search and name Chandrasekaran’s successor well before he leaves. The new chairman will inherit large strategic commitments and must explain to shareholders, employees, and other stakeholders how these will be financed, prioritised, and governed.

The group is too important — to India’s industrial ambitions, employment, exports, and philanthropy — for another prolonged or opaque succession. The Tata Trusts and Tata Sons board must agree not merely on a candidate but also on the authority, mandate, and strategic latitude accompanying the office.

Chandrasekaran should be allowed to complete his term with full authority and facilitate an orderly handover. Tata must now preserve his achievements, confront the unfinished business, and demonstrate that the institution remains larger than any individual.