MUMBAI: Two days before a crucial board meeting of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT), the charitable trust that owns 24% of Tata Sons, a legal challenge threatens to derail proceedings. Suresh Tulsiram Patilkhede, a 61-year-old Thane resident, has moved the Bombay high court to block Friday’s meeting, arguing the current SRTT board is unlawful and should be barred from taking decisions.Friday’s agenda includes a review of SRTT’s nominee directors on Tata Sons’ board, a move that could trigger an attempt to remove vice-chairman Venu Srinivasan amid differences with SRTT chairman Noel Tata over a potential listing of the Tata Group holding company.Patilkhede turned to the court after receiving no response to his complaint, filed through lawyer Katyayani Agrawal, to the Maharashtra charity commissioner.Anticipating such legal moves, SRTT had filed a caveat through law firm Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas in the court on Monday, ensuring it is heard before any order is passed. The matter is expected to be heard on Thursday, with senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for SRTT.At the heart of Patilkhede’s petition is a September 2025 amendment to the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (MPT Act) that caps lifetime trustees at 25% of a board where the trust deed does not provide for such appointments. The plea, filed through RSA Legal, argues SRTT breaches this threshold, with three of its six trustees, Noel, Jimmy Tata and Jehangir Jehangir, designated as perpetual trustees, accounting for 50% of the board. The remaining three, Srinivasan, Vijay Singh and Darius Khambata, are fixed-term trustees. Jimmy, Noel’s older half-brother, became a life trustee in 1989 following his father’s death, in accordance with his will. Three decades later, Noel and Jehangir were appointed as life trustees in February 2019. The petition further contends that, in the absence of any enabling clause in the 1916 will and codicil of Sir Ratanji Tata, the younger son of Tata Group founder Jamsetji Tata, only one lifetime trustee is permissible, rendering the current structure in “continuing violation” of the MPT Act.The case names nine respondents, including the Maharashtra government, the charity commissioner, SRTT and its trustees, and seeks directions to bring the trust into compliance.Patilkhede relies on a legal opinion by former supreme court justice Krishna Murari, who says the MPT Act amendment introduces a statutory cap on life trustees and that trustees deriving status solely from board resolutions fall within its scope. He concludes that trustees in breach must step down and seek reappointment as term trustees, and that decisions taken by a non-compliant board since September 2025 could be open to challenge. That would bring under scrutiny the September 2025 decision by SRTT trustees to vote against Singh’s continuation on the Tata Sons board, as well as the October 2025 decision to oppose the extension of Mehli Mistry’s trusteeship, which marked the end of his tenure at the trust. The writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Indian constitution, also seeks to declare that all actions taken by the SRTT board after September 1, 2025 are void ab initio. Article 226 empowers high courts to issue writs and orders to state and other authorities to enforce compliance with statutory provisions.SRTT maintains it is legally compliant, arguing that the amendment operates prospectively unless stated otherwise. The outcome of the case could have wider implications for hundreds of thousands of public charities in Maharashtra, amid growing uncertainty over governance structures involving lifetime trustees.
