Tata Trusts is weighing multiple legal and administrative options after the Maharashtra charity commissioner restrained the Trusts from convening board meetings pending an inquiry into alleged violations of trustee composition norms under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (MPT Act). Tata Trusts also says it was unaware of any complaint filed by Venu Srinivasan until it received the charity commissioner’s communication. Meanwhile, according to sources, Sir Ratan Tata Trust and Navajbai Ratan Tata Trust are planning to file caveats before the Bombay High Court and the charity commissioner’s office to ensure that no adverse order is passed without first hearing the Trusts’ side.
People familiar with the matter say Tata Trusts is considering seeking clarifications from the charity commissioner’s office, arguing that the directive cannot operate as a blanket restraint on all Tata trusts and may also challenge the order before the Bombay High Court.
The dispute centres on the composition of the board of Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT), one of the principal trusts within the Tata philanthropic network. Complaints filed by trustee Venu Srinivasan and advocate Katyayani Agrawal alleged that three of the six trustees of SRTT are perpetual trustees, potentially violating Section 30A(2) of the MPT Act, introduced through the Maharashtra Public Trusts (Second) Amendment Act, 2025.
The amended provision prescribes that perpetual or life trustees shall not exceed one-fourth of the total number of trustees in a public trust.
In a statement issued on 15 May 2026, Tata Trusts strongly objected to the manner in which the order was passed.
“The direction was issued ex parte, with no notice being given to the Sir Ratan Tata Trust and no hearing being afforded to it, before the direction was issued,” Tata Trusts says.
Tata Trusts also maintained that the amended law cannot invalidate trustee appointments made before the amendment came into force.
“It is the understanding of the Tata Trusts that the said amendment is prospective in nature and does not affect the appointments of perpetual trustees made prior to its coming into force on 1 September 2025. This is substantiated by both opinions and clarifications obtained by the Tata Trusts,” the statement says.
It added, "It may be pertinent to mention that the Bombay High Court, on 13 May 2026, disposed of the aforementioned writ petition no16647/2026 as withdrawn. That petition had sought a direction restraining the same meeting of the board of trustees of Sir Ratan Tata Trust, on the basis of the complaint filed by Ms Agrawal."
According to media reports, Tata Trusts believes the charity commissioner’s directive should have been confined only to the issues raised in the complaints and restricted to SRTT, rather than extending across the broader network of Tata Trusts.
The order effectively freezes administrative and governance functions across the trusts, including decisions involving grant disbursements, management issues and shareholder-related matters connected to Tata Sons.
Tata Trusts collectively holds about 66% shareholding in Tata Sons Pvt Ltd, while SRTT alone owns about 24%.
The complainants had also sought reconstitution of the SRTT board in line with the amended law and requested that decisions taken after 1 September 2025 be treated as invalid.
Maharashtra charity commissioner, Amogh S Kaloti, directed Tata Trusts to defer the 16th May board meeting and refrain from convening further meetings until completion of an inspector-level inquiry under Sections 37 and 39 of the MPT Act.
The order, issued under Section 36A(1) of the Act, stated that allowing board meetings during the pendency of the inquiry could create 'further complications and multiplicity of proceedings', especially if decisions affecting administration, management or board composition were taken.
Tata Trusts says it had received the communication only late in the evening on 15 May 2026 through email.
“An email was received late evening today, forwarding a direction issued by the charity commissioner, Maharashtra state, Mumbai, to the board of trustees of Tata Trusts to defer the meeting of the Board of Trustees scheduled for 16 May, 2026,” the statement says.
Tata Trusts further clarified that the complaint filed by Ms Agrawal related only to the Sir Ratan Tata Trust.
“Given these facts, we understand that the direction issued is only in respect of Sir Ratan Tata Trust,” the statement added.
Tata Trusts also says it was unaware of any complaint filed by Mr Srinivasan until receipt of the charity commissioner’s communication.
"Sir Ratan Tata Trust is not aware of any complaint having been filed by Venu Srinivasan, trustee, until the receipt of directions from the charity commissioner today. Mr Srinivasan had previously acknowledged the notice of the board meeting originally scheduled to be held on 8 May 2026 and the notice of the meeting rescheduled to 16 May 2026," Tata Trusts says.
The controversy has intensified scrutiny of governance structures within Tata Trusts, among India’s largest philanthropic institutions with major involvement in healthcare, education, nutrition, livelihoods, sanitation and rural development programmes.
The dispute also assumes significance because Tata Sons is expected to hold a board meeting next month. According to people familiar with the matter, some cancelled meetings of Tata Trusts were expected to discuss nominees to the Tata Sons board and comments by certain trustees, including Mr Srinivasan, supporting a possible Tata Sons initial public offering.
Separately, Sir Ratan Tata Trust and Navajbai Ratan Tata Trust filed caveats before the Bombay High Court and the charity commissioner’s office in anticipation of possible legal proceedings initiated by members of the Patilkhede family, including Suresh Tulsiram Patilkhede and Sunil Tulsiram Patilkhede.
The caveats, filed through Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, sought to ensure that no adverse order is passed without first hearing the Trusts’ side.
The Bombay High Court had earlier disposed as withdrawn a related writ petition seeking to restrain the 16th May board meeting. Tata Trusts says the petition had sought “a direction restraining the same meeting of the Board of Trustees of Sir Ratan Tata Trust, on the basis of the complaint filed by Ms Agrawal.”
“The directions received from the office of charity commissioner are being examined by the Sir Ratan Tata Trust,” Tata Trusts says.
You may also want to read…
