Reprieve For Tata Trusts: Maharashtra Charity Commissioner Clarifies Order Issued Last WeekThe Maharashtra charity commissioner on Monday clarified that its order freezing board meetings applies only to Sir Ratan Tata Trust and not to other Tata trusts, providing significant relief to the Noel Tata-headed philanthropic group.The clarification paves the way for the remaining Trusts to resume normal functioning, including holding board meetings and disbursing funds to social projects. The original order was seen as a sweeping blanket directive against the dozen-odd Trusts.Following the commissioner’s original order, the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT), Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) and Tata Education and Development Trust had all cancelled their scheduled board meetings.On Monday, Tata Trusts wrote to the commissioner seeking clarification on the original order. Commissioner Amogh Kaloti replied that the May 15 directions were issued with specific reference to complaints by advocate Katyayani Agrawal and trustee Venu Srinivasan, both of which referred only to SRTT.“Due to inadvertence, the term ‘Tata Trusts’ was used instead of the specific name, ‘Sir Ratan Tata Trust,’” he said, clarifying that the directions “apply solely to Sir Ratan Tata Trust, and not to any other trust or trusts that may come under the umbrella of ‘Tata Trusts’.”
The complaints alleged that perpetual trustees account for 50% of SRTT’s board, double the 25% cap set by Sept 2025 amendments to the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. Agrawal had also argued that decisions taken by SRTT after the law was amended were liable to be treated as invalid. The Trusts contest the perpetual trustee issue, saying the amendments apply prospectively and do not affect appointments made before Sept 1, 2025.Lawyers said that while this position had merit, SRTT’s board composition had become non-compliant since Sept 2025 and the defect needed to be rectified. Corporate lawyer Swapnil Kothari said the Sept amendment is prospective in nature but that does not mean board decisions taken after it came into force are insulated.Another lawyer said that even with the commissioner’s clarification, the review of nominee directors on Tata Sons board is likely to remain in abeyance until the commissioner’s inquiry on SRTT is complete. The same agenda item is unlikely to be taken up at the SDTT board meeting either, he noted, given that Srinivasan serves as a nominee director of both SRTT and SDTT on the Tata Sons board.With the two Trusts together holding a controlling stake in Tata Sons, any decision on nominee representation is inherently interconnected, he added.The freeze on SRTT’s board meetings remains in place until the commissioner completes his inquiry and submits a report.