The Maharashtra Charity Commissioner did not propose the rule that has paralysed Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT), the second-largest shareholder in Tata Sons, for nearly six months. The rule that resulted in the suspension of the trust’s board proceedings was introduced by the state government and invoked by the commissioner on 15 May this year, as per the public trusts regulator’s office.
In response to a Mint query under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the charity commissioner’s office said it had sent no proposal to the state’s Law and Judiciary Department regarding the Maharashtra Public Trusts (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025.
Promulgated on 1 September 2025, the ordinance capped the number of perpetual trustees at one-fourth of a public trust’s total board strength, where its trust deed does not specifically provide for their appointment. The earlier law did not prescribe such a numerical cap.
“In the above context, it is hereby informed that no proposal has been submitted by the Charity Commissioner, State of Maharashtra to the state’s Department of Law and Justice,” the commissioner’s office said on 15 October in a response to the Mint RTI query.
“Therefore, the records in this regard are not available in this office,” it said in a letter drafted in Marathi, which Mint has translated.
The charity commissioner’s office reiterated its position in a subsequent email to Mint on Monday, adding: “However, the deliberations were made in the Law and Judiciary Department.”
Also Read | Realise investor anxiety, will consider feedback, says FM Nirmala Sitharaman
The amendment has prevented SRTT from conducting board proceedings, contributed to a deadlock at Tata Sons and stalled the company’s annual general meeting (AGM), complicating efforts to resolve a leadership dispute.
The state’s Law and Judiciary Department, which issued the ordinance, has declined to provide details of how the amendment was drafted.
Asked for copies of Cabinet proposals, stakeholder representations and lobbying records, and inter-departmental correspondence relating to the ordinance, it said work on the file was “in progress at the Government level” and the information could not be provided “at present”.
The ordinance made several changes to the law governing public trusts. The state legislature ratified it in December 2025 as the Maharashtra Public Trusts (Second Amendment) Act, 2025.
Experts said it was unusual to amend a law without a proposal from the regulatory body responsible for implementing it.
“Generally, the introduction of law or any amendments to existing laws are introduced with consultation of the regulatory body (state or central) of that law because ultimately, such regulatory body ensures the effective implementation of the law or its amendments,” said Gaurav Pingle, partner at Forefront Legal Consulting LLP.
“In case of amendments, there could be reporting or disclosure requirements which would require the overview of the concerned regulatory body,” he said.
The charity commissioner’s office, however, functions under the state’s Law and Judiciary Department. This differs from the institutional structure of federal regulators such as the Reserve Bank of India and the Securities and Exchange Board of India, whose offices are outside government ministries, even though the Centre appoints their heads and can issue policy directions.
Emails sent to Maharashtra’s Law and Judiciary Department seeking comment went unanswered until press time.
Also Read | Noel objects to Tata Sons board minutes, RoC filing over N Chandrasekaran’s reappointment
SRTT under a freeze
The amendment became central to the dispute on 28 April, when Tata Trusts vice chairman Venu Srinivasan complained to the charity commissioner that SRTT’s three permanent trustees were violating the law governing public trusts. SRTT had six trustees at the time.
On 15 May, the charity commissioner ordered that the Trust could not hold meetings or take decisions while an investigation was under way. The order was issued without giving Tata Trusts an opportunity to explain its position, the charitable organizations had said then in a statement.
The amendment has fuelled confusion because it does not clearly state whether its restrictions apply only to appointments made after 1 September 2025 or also to existing appointments.
Tata Trusts maintains that the amendment is prospective and does not affect appointments made before it came into force. It says all three of SRTT’s perpetual trustees — Noel Tata, Jimmy Tata and Jehangir HC Jehangir—were appointed before the amendment.
“It is the understanding of the Tata Trusts that the said amendment is prospective in nature and does not affect the appointments of perpetual trustees made prior to its coming into force on 1st September 2025. This is substantiated by both opinions and clarifications obtained by the Tata Trusts,” Tata Trusts said in a statement on the evening of 15 May.
Deadlock spreads to Tata Sons
The paralysis at SRTT has had consequences beyond the trust itself. Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT), which owns 27.98% of Tata Sons, and SRTT, which owns 23.56%, are the two principal Tata Trusts. Together with smaller trusts, they hold 65.9% of the company.
Tata Sons’ rules require representatives of both SDTT and SRTT to be present for a general meeting to proceed. With SRTT unable to take decisions or send representatives, Tata Sons’ AGM was adjourned on 18 August for lack of quorum.
The impasse has also prevented shareholders from resolving a separate disagreement over Tata Sons’ leadership.
Also Read | Tata being ‘criminally destroyed’; no business leader dares to say a word: Rahul Gandhi
Noel Tata, chairman of Tata Trusts, was outvoted by the Tata Sons board on 17 September, when N. Chandrasekaran was reappointed chairman for a third five-year term. Tata Trusts has called the decision “illegal”. Tata Sons maintains that the reappointment of Chandrasekaran was done while abiding by all due processes.
A shareholder decision is required to complete the appointment process, but the company cannot hold the AGM until the quorum issue is resolved.
The dispute has now acquired a political dimension. Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi suggested political involvement in the boardroom conflict last week.
“Tata is being criminally destroyed, and no business leader dares say a word. How long will you stay silent? Until they own you?” Gandhi wrote on X.
Finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman rejected the suggestion, urging Gandhi not to politicize the matter.
She said it was unacceptable to casually describe business and legal matters as criminal, and accused him of repeatedly criticizing the achievements of Indian industries and entrepreneurs