Mehli Mistry challenges Tata Trust removal before Mumbai Charity Commissioner 

In a sharp escalation of the legal conflict surrounding his alleged removal, Mehli Mistry has filed a detailed rejoinder before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai Region, challenging the reply submitted by Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsaji Charitable Institution in Change Report No. 678 of 2026.

The rejoinder raises serious questions concerning the legality of the removal process, the eligibility of existing trustees, the interpretation of the original Trust Deed, and the alleged selective application of governing provisions.

Setting a confrontational tone, Mistry’s filing calls out apparent inconsistencies regarding citizenship and overseas residency requirements. Pointing specifically to Reporting Trustee Noel N. Tata, Mistry highlighted that Noel Tata is an Irish citizen holding a UAE Golden Visa while questioning his fiscal residency status.

The rejoinder demands an affidavit from Noel Tata clarifying his citizenship history, including whether he held a Swiss passport alongside an Indian passport in the past, when his citizenship changed, why he chose Irish citizenship, and whether reports regarding his mother’s alleged Swiss citizenship bear any connection. Mistry contends that foreign citizenship and overseas fiscal residency cannot be selectively weaponized against one trustee while ignored in another.

The legal challenge further targets the faith and residency qualifications under Clauses 6 and 18 of the registered Trust Deed, which mandate adherence to the Parsi Zoroastrian faith and specific residence requirements. Stating his own readiness to file an eligibility affidavit, Mistry has questioned whether trustees including Noel N Tata, Venu Srinivasan, and Vijay Singh satisfy these requirements, asserting that Noel Tata does not practice the Zoroastrian faith.

Addressing term limits, Mistry points out that neither the original Will dated March 20, 1913, nor the Trust Deed dated December 7, 1923, prescribes a three-year tenure, nor does Clause 23 list tenure expiration as a ground for vacancy.

He asserts that a three-year limit could not be introduced via an administrative circular and emphasizes a joint resolution passed on October 17, 2024, by the trustees of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and Sir Ratan Tata Trust agreeing to reappointments without tenure limits. Mistry alleges this resolution was selectively implemented to benefit Noel Tata while denying him equal treatment.

Mistry has directly challenged the validity of Circular Resolution No. 671 dated October 23, 2025 — the foundation of the Change Report — noting that Noel Tata, Venu Srinivasan, and Vijay Singh did not approve it, while Jimmy N. Tata did not respond. He argues that excluding votes from legally disqualified trustees would alter the outcome, questioning if his cessation ever validly occurred.

Pushing back against objections to his locus standi, Mistry maintains that as his name remains on the Register of Public Trusts and the proceedings directly target his position, natural justice dictates he be heard. He also dismissed the Trust’s reliance on a March 31, 2000 legal opinion by former Chief Justice M H Kania, stating a private opinion cannot override a registered Trust Deed, while requesting a legible copy alongside the original instructions supplied to Justice Kania.

Additionally, Mistry raised governance and fiduciary concerns regarding commissions and personal financial benefits allegedly received by certain trustees acting as nominated company directors, maintaining that such funds should be properly accounted for within the Trust’s charitable framework.

Before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Mistry has sought directions requiring all past and present Reporting Trustees to file affidavits confirming their eligibility and adherence to the Parsi Zoroastrian faith, an examination of the validity of Circular Resolution No. 671, and the total rejection of Change Report No. 678 of 2026.