The Tata Trusts have experienced a rare and public internal rift, with minutes of a recent board meeting exposing sharp divisions among trustees, especially concerning Noel Tata's support for Vice Chairman Vijay Singh. This dispute has significant consequences for the governance and future of the Tata Group, India's largest conglomerate.
Details of the Conflict
During a board meeting on September 11, 2025, tensions surfaced over the reappointment of Vijay Singh, 77, as a nominee director on the Tata Sons board. A group of four trustees, led by Mehli Mistry, opposed Singh's continuation, advocating for Mistry as a stronger representative of the Trusts' interests. Singh, a former defense secretary, had been brought in as a trustee by Ratan Tata in 2018, and his removal marked an unprecedented move in the Trusts, which previously relied on consensus rather than votes.
Noel Tata and Venu Srinivasan stood firmly by Singh, praising his loyalty and contributions to the Tata group during difficult phases. However, Singh declined to attend discussions on his role, expressing that voting on such matters was against the legacy and decision-making ethos of Ratan Tata, who emphasized unanimity.
Power Dynamics and Boardroom Drama
The conflict follows the passing of Ratan Tata in October 2024, which has reportedly led to divisions among trustees and diminished the stabilizing personal influence he once held. This governance tussle echoes previous historic disagreements in the group, such as the 2016 ouster of Cyrus Mistry, and revives concerns about transparency and proper information sharing from Tata Sons to the Trusts.
Noel Tata, now chairman of Tata Trusts, faces a challenging situation as his authority is questioned by other influential trustees. The minutes revealed Mehli Mistry's disappointment at Noel Tata's reluctance to back him for a board role, despite earlier support, highlighting shifting alliances and the complexity of the Trusts' leadership structure.
Consequences for the Tata Group
Governance Crisis: The very public nature of the split—especially the move to put board nominations to vote—marks a departure from the Trusts' tradition of consensus and signals a new era in Tata governance.
Market Anxiety: The turmoil has contributed to a notable decline in the market capitalization of Tata group companies, eroding investor confidence as the conglomerate’s leadership appears divided.
Regulatory Pressure: The rift occurs against the backdrop of regulatory requirements for Tata Sons to pursue a public listing, mandated by the Reserve Bank of India. Internal divisions may complicate compliance efforts and future strategic decisions.
Government Intervention: Concerned about the economic significance of Tata Trusts, government officials including Home Minister Amit Shah and Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman have intervened, urging leaders to restore stability and resolve differences internally to avoid wider disruption.
Public Responsibility: With the Trusts holding a controlling 66% stake in Tata Sons, there is heightened scrutiny of their fiduciary responsibility to the conglomerate, its companies, and by extension, to the broader Indian business environment.
Potential Future Scenarios
The immediate outcome could see changes in board representation, possible removal of dissenting trustees, and a push for internal discipline.
Longer-term effects may include reforms in governance processes, increased transparency, and a recalibration of the Trusts’ role in Tata Sons, potentially impacting the direction and stability of India’s largest corporate group.
This episode marks a significant turning point for Tata Trusts and the Tata Group, raising hopes for greater transparency but also concerns about continuity and the risk of public confrontation in the country's most venerated corporate institution.