Bombay High Court declines urgent hearing in plea to halt Tata Trusts meeting

The Bombay High Court on Thursday refused an urgent hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a stay on key board meetings of the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT)—two main charitable entities under the umbrella of Tata Trusts - scheduled for 8 May.

A bench led by Chief Justice Chandrashekhar noted that the matter had already been mentioned earlier and urgent listing had been declined.

The court observed that once it had concluded there was no urgency, the plea could not be repeatedly mentioned for immediate hearing. However, the bench granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the vacation bench if he still wanted to pursue an urgent relief.

The PIL was filed by Suresh Tulsiram Patilkhede, a 61-year-old resident of Maharashtra’s Khopoli in Thane district, who described himself as a person interested in the proper administration of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust, a public trust governed under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950. The plea sought a stay on the Trust’s scheduled May 8 board meeting on the ground that the current composition of the board allegedly violates amendments introduced to the Maharashtra Public Trust Act in 2025. According to the petitioner, any resolutions passed by the present board could become legally vulnerable if the board itself is found to be improperly constituted.

“A meeting of the Board of Trustees is being called for even when the very constitution of the Board of Trustees is illegal and against the mandate of the Act,” the petition states.

The petition has named the state of Maharashtra, the Charity Commissioner, SRTT, as well as trustees Noel Tata, Venu Srinivasan, Vijay Singh, Jimmy N. Tata, Jehangir H.C. Jehangir and Darius Khambata as respondents.

Queries sent to Tata Trusts remained unanswered till press time.

“It will cause irreparable harm to the petitioner and the beneficiaries intended by the settlor,” the plea states, adding that the present constitution of the board allegedly breaches the statutory mandate and any decision passed by such a board would be “tainted” and “vulnerable to challenge.”

A settlor is a person or a legal entity who creates a trust, establishes its terms and transfers ownership of assets to the trust for the designated beneficiaries.

The agenda for the meeting reportedly includes reconsideration of Tata Trusts’ representation on the board of Tata Sons. At present, Tata Trusts chairman Noel Tata and vice-chairman Venu Srinivasan are the Trusts' nominees on the Tata Sons board.

Tata Trusts collectively hold 65.9% in Tata Sons. Its two largest constituent trusts—Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and Sir Ratan Tata Trust—together account for more than 51% of the holding company of the Tata Group.

At the centre of the dispute is a 2025 amendment to the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, which says that if a trust’s original documents do not specifically allow permanent or “life trustees”, then such trustees cannot make up more than one-fourth of the total board members.

According to the petition, the Sir Ratan Tata Trust currently has six trustees, including three life trustees—Noel Tata, Jimmy Tata and Jehangir H.C. Jehangir — allegedly breaching the statutory limit prescribed under the amended law.

The plea states that following the Maharashtra Public Trust (Second Amendment) Act, 2025, which came into effect on 1 September 2025, trusts whose governing instruments do not expressly provide for appointment of life or perpetual trustees cannot have such trustees exceeding one-fourth, or 25%, of the total board strength. It further argues that the statutory mandate overrides any past practice, custom or internal decisions previously adopted by trustees.

The petition also contends that the Sir Ratan Tata Trust’s founding documents do not expressly provide for appointment of life trustees. Established in 1919 through the Will and Codicil of Sir Ratanji Jamsetji Tata, the Trust’s governing documents allow appointment of trustees to ensure continuity of administration, but do not create a category of permanent or lifelong trustees, the plea argues.

“Any internal resolution or decision of the trustees that they may have taken, cannot exceed the ceiling imposed under a statute. This naturally flows from the provision which is mandatory, not permissive,” the petition states.

The plea also seeks directions to reconstitute the Trust’s board in line with the amended law and to direct the Charity Commissioner to initiate an inquiry into the matter.