More complexity at Tata Trusts following resignation of Venu Srinivasan
Legal experts say M. H. Kania only presented a view on the composition of the trust; cannot be viewed as “legally binding”
- Apr 7, 2026,
- Updated Apr 7, 2026 2:13 PM IST
The battle within Tata Trusts has shown no signs of abating. Earlier this month, it moved to Bai Hirabai Jamshetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution.
It started with Mehli Mistry, a former Tata Trusts trustee, filing an affidavit with the Maharashtra charity commissioner. It questioned the appointment of Venu Srinivasan, TVS Motors’ Chairman Emeritus and Vijay Singh, ex-Defence secretary, as Vice-Chairmen of the Bai Hirabhai Trust. His contention was that only Zoroastrians could be trustees apart from needing to be permanent residents of Mumbai. It quickly resulted in Srinivasan stepping down from his position.
The issue got a little complicated when a legal opinion by M. H. Kania, former Chief Justice of India, was cited stating there was no legal bar on non-Zoroastrians serving as trustees. Media reports later quoted Srinivasan that he was not fully informed of the situation and Kania’s opinion was not provided. Now, the question comes down to what all this means from a legal perspective.
ALSO READ: Tata Trust dispute: Venu Srinivasan resigns from Bai Hirabai Charitable Trust
Eminent tax lawyer, Homi Ranina thinks Kania merely presented an opinion for the eligibility criteria to be a trustee on any of the Tata Trusts. “That is certainly not legally binding and should not be viewed in that manner,” he says categorically. On the issue of trustees needing to be Zoroastrians and residents of Mumbai, Ranina points out that the law is clear about that, and a trust deed should not be ignored.
“Both Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh should have made themselves familiar with the trust deed. That would have avoided this extremely sticky situation,” says Ranina. The other part relates to a charitable trust filing its financial numbers every year with the Charity Commissioner. “It appears that has not taken place for two years and can be viewed as a dereliction of duty. Under Section 41A, the charity commissioner can remove the trustees,” says Ranina. The section empowers the commissioner to issue directions for the proper administration of public trusts and prevent mismanagement or harm to trust property.
Tata Trusts holds 66% of Tata Sons, the conglomerate’s holding company. Besides, Tata Trusts can nominate one-third of Tata Sons’ board. Srinivasan and Tata Trusts’ Chairman, Noel Tata are the nominees, while Singh had stepped down last September.
ALSO READ: Infosys, TCS, Tata Tech, TechM, Coforge: Target prices as Singapore investors flag AI risks
“The focus of the trusts is lost in hyper-technicalities and difficult procedural requirements. The legal threshold is the bare minimum that should be adhered to. Tata Trusts should strive for something more,” says Ashish Kumar Singh, Partner at Capstone Legal. Clearly, more is waiting to play out in the time to come.
The battle within Tata Trusts has shown no signs of abating. Earlier this month, it moved to Bai Hirabai Jamshetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution.
It started with Mehli Mistry, a former Tata Trusts trustee, filing an affidavit with the Maharashtra charity commissioner. It questioned the appointment of Venu Srinivasan, TVS Motors’ Chairman Emeritus and Vijay Singh, ex-Defence secretary, as Vice-Chairmen of the Bai Hirabhai Trust. His contention was that only Zoroastrians could be trustees apart from needing to be permanent residents of Mumbai. It quickly resulted in Srinivasan stepping down from his position.
The issue got a little complicated when a legal opinion by M. H. Kania, former Chief Justice of India, was cited stating there was no legal bar on non-Zoroastrians serving as trustees. Media reports later quoted Srinivasan that he was not fully informed of the situation and Kania’s opinion was not provided. Now, the question comes down to what all this means from a legal perspective.
ALSO READ: Tata Trust dispute: Venu Srinivasan resigns from Bai Hirabai Charitable Trust
Eminent tax lawyer, Homi Ranina thinks Kania merely presented an opinion for the eligibility criteria to be a trustee on any of the Tata Trusts. “That is certainly not legally binding and should not be viewed in that manner,” he says categorically. On the issue of trustees needing to be Zoroastrians and residents of Mumbai, Ranina points out that the law is clear about that, and a trust deed should not be ignored.
“Both Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh should have made themselves familiar with the trust deed. That would have avoided this extremely sticky situation,” says Ranina. The other part relates to a charitable trust filing its financial numbers every year with the Charity Commissioner. “It appears that has not taken place for two years and can be viewed as a dereliction of duty. Under Section 41A, the charity commissioner can remove the trustees,” says Ranina. The section empowers the commissioner to issue directions for the proper administration of public trusts and prevent mismanagement or harm to trust property.
Tata Trusts holds 66% of Tata Sons, the conglomerate’s holding company. Besides, Tata Trusts can nominate one-third of Tata Sons’ board. Srinivasan and Tata Trusts’ Chairman, Noel Tata are the nominees, while Singh had stepped down last September.
ALSO READ: Infosys, TCS, Tata Tech, TechM, Coforge: Target prices as Singapore investors flag AI risks
“The focus of the trusts is lost in hyper-technicalities and difficult procedural requirements. The legal threshold is the bare minimum that should be adhered to. Tata Trusts should strive for something more,” says Ashish Kumar Singh, Partner at Capstone Legal. Clearly, more is waiting to play out in the time to come.