Tata Trusts Contest Mehli Mistry's Claims on Trustee Tenure
Tata Trusts challenge former trustee Mehli Mistry's objections regarding the end of his term, asserting he lacks standing.
Tata Trusts argue Mehli Mistry's tenure expired on October 28, 2025.
The trusts seek to dismiss Mistry's objections as irrelevant to their governance.
Legal provisions restrict trustee eligibility to specific community members.
The Tata Trusts have formally contested objections raised by former trustee Mehli Mistry concerning the conclusion of his tenure. In a response submitted to the Deputy Charity Commissioner for the Greater Mumbai Region, the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution, represented by trustee Noel Tata, has requested that Mistry's objections be deemed inadmissible. The trusts assert that Mistry's three-year term ended on October 28, 2025, and that the current proceedings should only address the cessation of his trusteeship.
Mistry was appointed to the Bai Hirabai trust on October 29, 2022, for a term of three years, a position he accepted in a letter dated November 25, 2022, from then-chairman Ratan Tata. The trust has filed a change report under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, to officially document the end of Mistry's trusteeship. The trust contends that Mistry's allegations regarding the appointment of other trustees and the trust's administration fall outside the scope of the current proceedings.
Additionally, the Bai Hirabai trust has dismissed Mistry's challenge to Circular Resolution No. 671, dated October 23, 2025, which proposed his reappointment but failed to gain approval. The trust argues that even if the resolution were invalidated, it would not automatically reinstate Mistry, as his original term had already lapsed.
A significant aspect of the dispute revolves around the trust deed's stipulations that limit trustee eligibility to Parsis or Zoroastrians who are permanent residents of Navsari or the former Bombay Presidency. The trust maintains that these restrictions contradict the founding documents of the trust established by Sir Ratanji Jamsetji Tata and should not be enforced. It referenced a legal opinion from former Chief Justice M H Kania, which indicated that such restrictions were inconsistent with the governing testamentary documents.
Both Tata Trusts have requested that the Charity Commissioner prioritize their preliminary objections and allow them to present their case before any further decisions are made. The Charity Commissioner has yet to rule on the objections raised by Mistry and the trusts involved.
