The governance dispute within the Tata Trusts has widened, with Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT) vice-chairmen and trustees Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh questioning the authority and process behind the Trusts’ latest proposal to restructure Tata Sons Pvt Ltd, the holding company of the Tata group. The letter adds a new dimension to the ongoing Tata Trusts dispute: alongside questions over trustee appointments, voting rights and Noel Tata's role, Mr Srinivasan and Mr Singh are now directly questioning whether major strategic positions can be advanced in the name of SDTT without a prior collective decision of its trustees.
In a letter on 29 September 2026 addressed to the trustees of SDTT, Mr Srinivasan and Mr Singh said they were surprised to learn from public sources about a 28 September 2026 communication purportedly issued on behalf of SDTT and Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT), the majority shareholders of Tata Sons, asking the Tata Sons board to consider and approve a strategic reorganisation.
The proposed reorganisation involves merging Tata Electronics Systems Solutions Pvt Ltd (TESS) and Tata Consulting Engineers Limited (TCE) into Tata Sons.
The two trustees said no meeting of SDTT had been held before the communication was sent, nor had they been consulted. They questioned whether the letter to Tata Sons and the accompanying press release from Tata Trusts could legitimately be presented as the collective institutional position of SDTT.
Their intervention comes days after Mr Srinivasan separately approached the Maharashtra charity commissioner seeking an inquiry into the administration and governance of SDTT, including the status of perpetual trustees, Noel Tata's chairmanship of the Tata Trusts, the appointment of Neville Tata and Srinivasan's own exclusion from certain decision-making processes.
The 29th September letter focuses on the process followed before the restructuring proposal was put before Tata Sons.
Mr Srinivasan and Mr Singh said the proposal was significant enough to require detailed consideration by the trustees because it involves the merger of two operating companies with Tata Sons and could have legal, regulatory, financial, commercial and governance consequences.
They also pointed out that the proposed transaction would require regulatory consideration, including approval from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and could result in Tata Sons surrendering its existing certificate of registration.
The trustees questioned whether the communication could be described as reflecting the institutional position of SDTT when there had been no meeting at which the proposal was considered and no opportunity for all trustees to examine the underlying analysis.
They also questioned the practice of issuing Tata Trusts press releases without consultation or authorisation from SDTT trustees.
The issue is particularly significant because SDTT and SRTT are among the principal charitable shareholders of Tata Sons. Tata Trusts collectively hold about 66% of Tata Sons. SDTT holds about 27.98%, while SRTT holds about 23.56%.
Another issue raised by Mr Srinivasan and Mr Singh concerns the wording of the 28th September communication which asked the Tata Sons board to 'consider and approve' the strategic reorganisation.
The two trustees said a shareholder could express its wishes or propose a course of action, but the decision itself rests with the board of Tata Sons, which must independently assess the legal, regulatory, financial and commercial implications.
They questioned whether asking the board to approve the proposal in advance was consistent with the board's responsibility to independently evaluate the transaction.
The trustees also stressed that the proposed restructuring could have consequences that extend beyond Tata Sons and the Trusts, including for group companies, employees and regulators.
Tata Trusts, in their 28th September announcement, said the proposed merger of TESS and TCE would transform Tata Sons from a pure holding company into a holding-cum-operating company. It said the combined entity would have operating revenues of ₹105,043 crore, compared with financial asset income of ₹40,072 crore, and argued that the resulting structure would take Tata Sons outside the principal-business test for NBFCs and the criteria applicable to core investment companies. The proposal would require approval from RBI.
Mr Srinivasan and Mr Singh also challenged the suggestion that the Trusts' July 2025 decision to keep Tata Sons unlisted should automatically determine the present course of action.
They pointed out that the July 2025 decisions preceded the RBI's 11 September 2026 communication on Tata Sons' regulatory status.
Tata Trusts had said on 17 September 2026 that the RBI communication was discussed at a Tata Sons board meeting and that all available options, rather than listing alone, should be explored and assessed.
The 29th September letter from the two trustees argues that the earlier trustee decisions must therefore be understood in their original context and should not be treated as conclusive on the options available after the latest communication from RBI.
The two trustees said any assertion that the proposed reorganisation was in the best interests of the Tata group and its stakeholders should follow a careful and informed assessment rather than precede one.
The letter also raises a broader question that has featured in Mr Srinivasan's earlier complaint to the charity commissioner — how far a public charitable trust should become involved in the commercial and strategic affairs of a company in which it holds a substantial shareholding.
Mr Srinivasan had alleged in his complaint that the Tata Trusts, acting through their chairman and operating team, had taken a direct role in identifying, negotiating and seeking implementation of substantial commercial transactions concerning Tata Sons. He argued that such involvement could expose the Trust and its charitable corpus to significant consequences.
In the 29th September letter, Mr Srinivasan and Mr Singh referred to an earlier approach during Ratan Tata's time that the Trusts were not 'in the business of running a business'. They questioned whether the current approach risked blurring the distinction between exercising shareholder rights and directing commercial decision-making.
They also raised concerns about the possible implications for the charitable status of the Trusts and the value of the assets held for charitable purposes.
The two trustees referred to the Maharashtra charity commissioner's 15 May 2026 order concerning SRTT.
They said that, in view of that order, they understood that no SRTT meeting could have been convened to take a decision of the magnitude involved in the restructuring proposal.
The charity commissioner's intervention had previously restricted SRTT from holding meetings and taking decisions pending regulatory scrutiny of issues relating to its board composition and perpetual trustees. The matter has become an important part of the wider governance dispute within the Tata Trusts.
The 29th September letter is the latest development in an increasingly public dispute over the governance of the Tata Trusts and their role as controlling shareholders of Tata Sons.
On 16 September 2026, SDTT passed a circular resolution seeking to restrain Mr Srinivasan from participating in or voting on the proposed Tata Sons listing in his capacity as a nominee director. Mr Srinivasan subsequently challenged the move before the charity commissioner, describing it as an attempt to prevent him from exercising his independent judgement.
He has also questioned Noel Tata's status as a perpetual trustee and the basis of his chairmanship of the Tata Trusts, besides raising questions over the appointment of Neville Tata and his own exclusion from the relevant decision-making process.
Mr Srinivasan's complaint to the charity commissioner has since triggered a further response from the Trusts. Seven shareholder trusts of Tata Sons have filed caveats before the Maharashtra charity commissioner, seeking to ensure that they are heard before any order is passed on the complaint, according to reports.
The dispute has also unfolded against the backdrop of Tata Sons' proposed listing and RBI's regulatory direction. Tata Trusts have argued that alternatives to listing should be explored, while their 28 September 2026 restructuring proposal seeks to change Tata Sons' structure in a manner that could potentially take it outside the regulatory framework that triggered the listing requirement.
For Mr Srinivasan and Mr Singh, however, the central issue in their 29th September communication is the process by which an institutional position is reached.
They said decisions that carry the authority, reputation, and interests of SDTT should emerge from collective deliberation, with trustees given access to the relevant material and an opportunity to participate.
They distinguished between the personal views of individual trustees and a formal position taken in the name of the Trust.
The two trustees said their objective is to ensure that SDTT operates through governance and deliberative processes appropriate to an institution of its size and importance, particularly when its decisions can have significant consequences for Tata Sons and the wider Tata group.
Quoting executives, Mint reported that Noel Tata has filed 21 caveats, while his son Neville has filed 15. Neville Tata is also named in the complaint filed by Mr Srinivasan. "Noel Tata's 21 separate caveats relate to the seven shareholding Trusts of the Tata Trusts after Mr Srinivasan filed a complaint on 29 September 2026 about how SDTT, the largest shareholder of Tata Sons, is being managed."
You may also want to read…
One can only say " You ttu Srinivasan"
If Srinivasan has still some ethics ,he should relinquish his Emeritus position of TVS group avoiding the damage to reputation of TVS group .