With Tata Sons Chairman N. Chandrasekaran stepping down as the Tata Group’s top executive, a question is growing louder in legal circles: can the trustees of Tata Trusts continue to occupy seats on the conglomerate’s highest decision-making bodies while simultaneously lodging complaints against the very institution they help govern?This question lies at the heart of the governance battle that has engulfed Tata Trusts and, by extension, Tata Sons.The controversy centres around two influential trustees, Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh, both of whom participated in key decision making at Tata Trusts and Tata Sons, including the decision to keep Tata Sons unlisted. Yet both later emerged as advocates for listing the holding company, putting them at odds with Tata Trusts and triggering one of the most significant governance disputes in the Tata ecosystem since Ratan Tata’s death in October 2024.What changed?According to insiders familiar with developments within Tata Trusts, the first signs of trouble became apparent after Ratan’s death. They say Mehli Mistry, a close friend of the late Ratan and a Tata trustee at the time, became increasingly vocal about governance issues within the trusts. Among other things, Mistry questioned why Singh continued on the Tata Sons board despite being older than 75 years. Mistry openly criticised, even mocked, certain decisions taken by the trustees.Tata Trusts can appoint one-third of Tata Sons directors and wield veto powers over Tata Sons’ decisions, as per Tata Sons Articles of Association.Singh eventually stepped down from the Tata Sons board in September last year. According to people familiar with the matter, both Mistry and former banker and Tata Trusts trustee Pramit Jhaveri were viewed as potential candidates for the vacancy. However, sources say there was little enthusiasm within the Tata ecosystem for either appointment.The period immediately after Ratan’s death was itself marked by delicate negotiations. According to insiders, trustees unanimously agreed to appointing Noel Tata as the chairman of Tata Trusts. However, the rest of the the trustees also sought lifetime trusteeship. Discussions over trustee tenure took place simultaneously, laying the foundation for future disagreements over governance and succession.Why the conflict escalated after Singh’s departureAccording to sources, Mistry became increasingly critical of several trustees, including Srinivasan. Matters deteriorated to the point where Noel, Srinivasan, Chandrasekaran and Darius Khambata met Union home minister Amit Shah in October 2025 to express concerns about Mistry.The dispute culminated in Mistry’s exit in November last year from the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) and the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, the two principal trusts that together control roughly two-thirds of Tata Sons. Yet, the move did not bring peace.Within weeks, Neville Tata, the scion of the Tata family, was appointed as a trustee of the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust. Around the same time, Tata Trusts announced that new trustee appointments, including those of Srinivasan and Bhaskar Bhat, would be for fixed three-year terms, in line with changes under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.According to insiders, the move from lifetime appointments to fixed tenures proved to be a turning point. Both Srinivasan and Singh viewed the change as a dilution of trustee independence and became increasingly uncomfortable with the direction Noel was taking.Differences surfaced at the Tata Trusts trustees’ meetingWhen the proposal to appoint Neville to the SRTT came up for consideration, Srinivasan deferred the matter, saying it should be discussed at a subsequent meeting. Since then, Neville’s proposed induction into the trust has remained unresolved.Around the same time, both Srinivasan and Singh adopted a revised position that Tata Sons should be listed.The shift was significant because both of them had earlier participated in meetings of Tata Trusts and the Tata Sons board wherein the decision to keep Tata Sons unlisted had been unanimously agreed upon. Their support for listing put them directly at odds with Noel, who, according to people familiar with the matter, believes a listing could dilute the influence and veto rights currently exercised by Tata Trusts through its controlling stake in Tata Sons.Also read: Tata Sons is Losing its Chairman. It Can’t Afford to Lose its WayAt the same time, Noel also instructed Chandrasekaran to start negotiations with SP (Shapoorji Pallonji) Group so as to help it meet its liabilities. SP Group owns 18.4% stake in Tata Sons and is related to the Noel family by marriage.Chandrasekaran, meanwhile, never publicly articulated his position on the listing debate, preferring to keep his views private.The dispute widened further in February this year. According to sources, Noel sought detailed five-year business plans for several key businesses, particularly Air India and Tata Digital, whose losses had become a growing concern.One source said the presentations received by Tata Trusts from Tata Sons were viewed as inadequate, consisting largely of summary spreadsheets rather than comprehensive long-term plans. The issue became increasingly important as Air India and Tata Digital continued to consume substantial amounts of capital.When the debate over strategy merged with the question of leadershipWhen Chandrasekaran’s reappointment came up for discussion in February this year, Noel Tata sought a formal vote but Chandrasekaran deferred it. Sources say Noel’s position reflected broader concerns about capital allocation, governance and the performance of key businesses. Given the special rights available to Tata Trusts under the Tata Sons Articles of Association, the outcome carried significant implications for Chandrasekaran’s future.A statement by Chandrasekeran on August 12 notes that one director (read Noel Tata) did not support his renewal. His fate was sealed.Within weeks, the battle moved into the regulatory arena. Srinivasan supported a representation before the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner relating to the composition of the SRTT board. The move surprised many within the Tata ecosystem.A Tata Group source described the development as unusual, arguing that a trustee approaching a regulator while continuing to serve on the board raised questions about fiduciary responsibility. At around the same time, Singh separately sought an independent inquiry into the 1989 transfer of Tata Sons shares from the Navajbai Ratan Tata Trust to the late Naval Tata.The governance dispute became impossible to ignoreOn May 15, Tata Trusts disclosed that it had received an ex-parte direction from the Charity Commissioner asking the SRTT to defer a meeting scheduled for the following day. The direction was related to a complaint filed by one Katyayani Agrawal and a representation made by trustee Srinivasan.Tata Trusts said the order applied only to the SRTT and not to the other trusts. It also noted that the direction had been issued without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard.The complaint challenged the composition of the SRTT board, alleging that three of its six trustees held perpetual appointments in violation of amendments made to the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act in 2025.Tata Trusts disputed this interpretation, arguing that the amendments were prospective and did not invalidate appointments made before the law came into force. The trusts added that their position was supported by legal opinions and professional advice.Immediate consequencesThe SRTT’s ability to hold meetings, determine voting positions and appoint representatives for key Tata Sons decisions became dependent on the outcome of proceedings before the Charity Commissioner. This has even put a question mark over SRTT’s voting at Tata Sons AGM where Chandrasekaran had earlier offered to get reappointed, as per the AGM notice.An insider said another five-year term for Chandrasekaran was ruled out, however, a shorter tenure was considered for him as all Tata executives retire at the age of 65. Chandrasekaran, 63, decided to step down on Wednesday (August 12, 2026).Tata Trusts also said it had not been aware that one of its own trustees had approached the regulator until it received official communications from the Charity Commissioner. The trust noted that Srinivasan had acknowledged notices for meetings scheduled on May 8 and May 16.What began as a disagreement over trustee tenure and appointments had evolved into a larger struggle over governance, succession and the future direction of the Tata Group.The irony remains strikingBoth Srinivasan and Singh had supported the decision to keep Tata Sons unlisted before later advocating for a listing. Both had participated in governance decisions that they subsequently challenged. Both remain trustees within institutions whose authority they had questioned.Singh, meanwhile, stepped down from SRTT a few days before his tenure came to an end on August 14. A similar fate clearly awaits Srinisavan.Critics argue that fiduciary responsibility requires trustees to uphold the integrity of institutions whose decisions they helped shape.Even though the dispute is still unfolding, one thing is already clear: what started as a disagreement over trustee tenure and board appointments has become the most significant governance crisis within Tata Trusts in decades, its implications extending far beyond the trusts themselves and into the future leadership and ownership structure of Tata Sons. The broader question of whether sitting on a board/trust and litigating against it would probably be settled by the courts.But, it is clear that Noel is finally cleaning the stables – and how!Dev Chatterjee is a senior journalist and co-author of The Meltdown and India Inc’s Greatest Turnarounds.