The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed an urgent hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a stay on key board meetings of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) — two major charitable entities under the umbrella of the Tata Trusts — scheduled for August 8.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Chandrashekhar noted that the matter had been mentioned earlier and the urgent listing was rejected.
The court noted that once it concluded that there was no urgency, the cause of action could not be repeatedly mentioned for an immediate hearing. However, the bench gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the vacation bench if he still wanted to take urgent help.
Read also | A key moment at Tata Trusts as they vote to reappoint two vice-chairmen
The PIL was filed by Suresh Tulsiram Patilkhede, a 61-year-old resident of Maharashtra’s Khopoli in Thane district, who identified himself as a person interested in the proper management of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust, a public trust governed by the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950. The plea allegedly violated the current composition of the board at the May board meeting. amendments introduced in the Maharashtra Public Trust Act in 2025. According to the petitioner, any resolution passed by the current board could become legally vulnerable if the board itself was found to be improperly constituted.
“The board meeting is called even when the very constitution of the board is illegal and against the mandate of the law,” the petition states.
The petition named as respondents the State of Maharashtra, Charity Commissioner, SRTT as well as Trustees Noel Tata, Vena Srinivasan, Vijay Singh, Jimmy N Tata, Jehangir HC Jehangir and Darius Khambat.
Queries sent to the Tata Trusts remained unanswered till press time.
Focus on governance
Arguing that allowing the meeting to take place, the petitioner would cause “irreparable harm” to the Trust and its beneficiaries, and sought a temporary suspension of both the meeting and the implementation of the resolutions passed until the board is reconstituted in accordance with the amended law.
“It will cause irreparable harm to the petitioner and the settlor’s intended beneficiaries,” the lawsuit states, adding that the current composition of the board allegedly violates the statutory mandate and any decision by such a committee would be “tainted” and “vulnerable to challenge.”
A settlor is a natural or legal person who establishes a trust, establishes its terms and transfers ownership of assets to the trust for designated beneficiaries.
Read also | Former Tata trustee Mehli Mistry wants a trustee to manage the Tata Trusts
On the agenda of the meeting is said to be a review of the representation of Tata Trusts on the board of Tata Sons. Currently, Tata Trusts Chairman Noel Tata and Vice Chairman Venu Srinivasan are Trusts nominees on the Tata Sons Board.
The Tata Trusts jointly hold 65.9% in Tata Sons. Its two largest constituent trusts – Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and Sir Ratan Tata Trust – together make up more than 51% of the Tata group holding company.
At the heart of the dispute is an amendment to the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 2025, which says that unless the original trust documents specifically allow for permanent or “lifetime trustees”, then such trustees cannot constitute more than one-fourth of the total number of board members.
According to the petition, Sir Ratan Tata Trust currently has six trustees, including three life trustees – Noel Tata, Jimmy Tata and Jehangir HC Jehangir – who are allegedly in violation of the statutory limit prescribed under the amended Act.
The plea states that under the Maharashtra Public Trust (Second Amendment) Act, 2025, which came into force on 1 September 2025, trusts whose governing instruments do not expressly provide for the appointment of life or perpetual trustees cannot have such trustees exceeding one-fourth or 25% of the total number of board members. It further argues that the statutory mandate takes precedence over any prior practice, custom or internal decisions previously made by trustees.
Read also | Jamsetji Tata: Steel, Soul and India’s Industrial Plan
The petition also claims that the founding documents of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust do not expressly provide for the appointment of lifetime trustees. The governing documents of the Trust, established in 1919 through the will and codicil of Sir Ratanji Jamsetji Tata, allow for the appointment of trustees to ensure continuity of administration, but do not create a category of permanent or lifetime trustees, the plea alleges.
“No internal resolution or decision taken by the trustees shall exceed the statutory ceiling. This naturally follows from the provision which is mandatory, not permissive,” the petition states.
The cause of action also seeks directions to reinstate the Trust’s board in accordance with the amended Act and a direction to the Charity Commissioner to initiate an inquiry into the matter.
