SRTT Claims 'Tied Hands' in Response to Mehli Mistry's Allegations

In a significant development regarding the governance of Tata Trusts, the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) has informed the Maharashtra charity commissioner that it is unable to respond to allegations raised by former trustee Mehli Mistry. This inability stems from a prior order issued by the charity commission that restricts the Trust's board from holding meetings, effectively tying their hands in addressing the allegations. The ongoing dispute highlights critical issues surrounding trustee eligibility and governance within one of India's most prominent charitable organizations.

The SRTT's counsel conveyed to Prashant Panditrao Chavan, the assistant charity commissioner, that the order dated May 15, 2026, prevents the board from convening until an inquiry report is submitted by the commission's inspector. This order has significant implications, as it not only restricts the Trust's ability to respond to Mistry's allegations but also hinders its participation in key decisions, including voting at the Tata Sons Annual General Meeting (AGM) and nominating a member for the Tata Sons chairman selection committee.

The assistant commissioner did not grant SRTT's request for an adjournment, which the Trust argued was necessary to allow for a board meeting that could facilitate a proper response. The current situation underscores the complexities involved in the governance of charitable trusts and the legal frameworks that bind them.

Mehli Mistry's allegations against SRTT are multifaceted, focusing on irregularities in the administration and the handling of trustees' financial interests. One of the central points of contention is the eligibility of Venu Srinivasan, who allegedly voted on matters after his tenure as a trustee had expired. Mistry cited Section 30A(1) of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950, which stipulates that a trustee ceases to perform their functions once their tenure ends.

Mistry's analysis reveals that Srinivasan's tenure expired on October 23, 2025, yet he cast a vote on October 28, 2025, against Mistry's reappointment. This action, according to Mistry, directly contravenes the provisions of the Act, raising serious questions about the legitimacy of the vote and the governance practices within SRTT.

In addition to questioning Srinivasan's eligibility, Mistry has raised concerns regarding Noel Tata, the current chairman of Tata Trusts. Mistry's inquiry delves into Tata's citizenship status, noting that he holds Irish citizenship and a UAE Golden Visa. Mistry argues that the trust deed, established on December 7, 1923, mandates that trustees must practice the Zoroastrian faith and be permanent residents of the Bombay Presidency or Navsari.

Mistry's request for an affidavit from Noel Tata seeks clarification on his tax residency in India and his citizenship status at the time of his appointment as a trustee. This inquiry is crucial, as it could determine the legitimacy of Tata's position within the Trust and whether he meets the requirements set forth in the trust deed.

Mistry's allegations extend beyond eligibility concerns to encompass the financial interests of trustees. He has called for an inquiry into the benefits trustees receive from their positions on Tata Group company boards. Notably, Mistry flagged a transaction where Noel Tata reportedly received approximately ₹1.42 crore in annual commission from Tata Sons for the fiscal year 2025.

Additionally, Mistry questioned the engagement of former Jaguar Land Rover executive Gerry McGovern for Norton Motorcycles, owned by TVS Motor Corp., and the equity infusion into Tata International. These inquiries highlight the potential conflicts of interest that may arise when trustees have overlapping roles in corporate governance and charitable activities.

The Maharashtra charity commissioner has scheduled the next hearing for December 3, 2026, to address the various disputes raised by Mistry against SRTT and other Tata trusts. The outcome of this inquiry could have far-reaching implications for the governance of Tata Trusts and the broader landscape of charitable organizations in India.

As the legal proceedings unfold, the focus will remain on the adherence to governance standards and the accountability of trustees in managing the interests of the trusts they oversee. The ongoing scrutiny of Tata Trusts serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and ethical conduct in the administration of charitable organizations.