A fresh development has emerged in the ongoing internal conflict within the Tata Trusts, as trustee Mehli Mistry took proactive steps by lodging a caveat with the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner following his non-reappointment to the boards of the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and the Sir Ratan Tata Trust. This precautionary measure ensures that any decision regarding his removal cannot be made without affording him an opportunity to present his perspective.
Mistry’s three-year term as trustee concluded on October 28, 2025, prompting a circular on October 23 that sought approval for his reappointment as a life trustee. However, the proposal faced opposition from trustees Noel Tata, Venu Srinivasan, and Vijay Singh, resulting in a majority vote against his reappointment, effectively terminating his tenure.
The recent decision has reignited tensions within India’s most prominent philanthropic entities. This development comes on the heels of a resolution passed by the Trusts following the demise of Ratan N. Tata, stipulating automatic reappointment for life of trustees whose terms had expired, subject to legal regulations. Despite this resolution, Mistry’s reappointment was not endorsed, prompting his decision to file a caveat.
In his filing, Mistry urged the Charity Commissioner to grant him a hearing before any alterations are made to the records or any actions are taken under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The caveat serves as a safeguard against unilateral actions and upholds his right to present his case before any decision is reached.
Explaining the legal implications of the caveat, Rahul Hingmire, Managing Partner at Vis Legis Law Practice, emphasized that it binds the Charity Commissioner to notify Mistry and provide him with an opportunity to be heard before confirming any removal. This process ensures procedural fairness and upholds the principle of due process.
Furthermore, Suvigya Awasthy, Partner at PSL Advocates & Solicitors, highlighted that Mistry’s caveat falls under Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows individuals to prevent actions from being taken without prior notice. By filing the caveat, Mistry ensures that any changes in trusteeship cannot proceed without informing him and affording him a fair hearing.
The article details the potential legal steps that could follow, including appeals under Section 70 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act within a specified timeframe. The narrative underscores the importance of transparency, adherence to legal procedures, and the potential for prolonged litigation if grievances are not resolved amicably.
The experts emphasized the significance of dialogue and mediation to prevent reputational damage to the Tata Trusts. They suggested exploring conciliation and long-term governance solutions to address the conflict swiftly and safeguard the institution’s credibility.
As the situation evolves, the resolution of the dispute will hinge on how the Charity Commissioner interprets the Trusts’ 2024 resolution and the ability of both parties to find a harmonious balance between institutional continuity and transparency.