Tata Trusts on Thursday, 15 October 2026, challenged the legal standing of former trustee Mehli Mistry before the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner, arguing that he has no right to object to changes in the composition of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) and the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust after the expiry of his term. The challenge marks a significant escalation in what has become a protracted governance battle over Tata's flagship philanthropic institutions.

The Locus Standi Argument

Lawyers representing the trusts raised a preliminary objection at Thursday's hearing, contending that only a serving trustee or a beneficiary has the legal right to object to a change report — and that Mistry satisfies neither condition. According to the trusts, Mistry's three-year term as a trustee of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust expired on 28 October 2025, and his reappointment did not materialise because the trust deed mandates unanimous approval from all trustees, which was not secured.

The trusts were categorical that Mistry was not removed from the board but had simply completed a fixed-term tenure. The filing before the authorities, they maintained, was a statutory change report — a routine regulatory requirement under trust law whenever trusteeship changes, whether through expiry, resignation, removal, or fresh appointment. Lawyers for Mistry sought additional time to respond to these submissions.

The Governance Dispute at Its Core

The locus standi challenge sits within a broader contest over the governance of Tata's charitable foundations. A separate matter involves the proposed appointment of Noel Tata as the reporting trustee of the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution. Mistry has opposed this proposal, arguing that the appointment must comply with Clauses 6 and 18 of the trust deed dated 7 December 1923, which require trustees to be practising Zoroastrians from the Parsi community. He has asked the Charity Commissioner to direct Noel Tata to file an affidavit confirming that he meets these eligibility conditions.

Notably, this is not the first time Tata's philanthropic structures have faced scrutiny over eligibility and governance norms — the institutions, some dating back over a century, carry intricate deed-based obligations that periodically become flashpoints when succession or composition changes are attempted.

Orders Restricting SRTT From Holding Meetings

Thursday's hearing also saw arguments over SRTT's request for an adjournment in responding to a separate complaint filed by Mistry. The trust cited orders issued by the Charity Commissioner on 15 May and 18 May 2026 under Section 36A(1) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, passed in complaints filed by Katyayani Agrawal and Venu Srinivasan. These orders reportedly restrain SRTT from holding meetings until an inspector's inquiry report is submitted, and remain in force.

Mistry's legal team opposed the adjournment, alleging that the trust was attempting to delay proceedings. They argued that SRTT had previously sought a deferral on 8 September citing trustee substitution, and was now invoking a different basis — the May orders. They further contended that filing a reply to objections does not constitute a decision relating to the trust's administration, management, or composition, and could therefore proceed despite the existing restrictions. Counsel for SRTT rejected this characterisation as factually inaccurate, stating that the trust's response would be placed on record.

What Happens Next

The Maharashtra Charity Commissioner has scheduled the next hearing for 5 November 2026. The proceedings will likely determine whether Mistry's objections are entertained at all — a ruling against him on locus standi could effectively foreclose his challenge to the trustee composition changes without addressing the substance of his misgovernance allegations. The outcome will have significant implications for how India's largest private philanthropic trusts handle succession and accountability going forward.