Tata Trusts chief executive Siddharth Sharma on Tuesday defended his position on the controversy surrounding the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata trust, writing to all 12 members of Tata Trusts after facing accusations that he had concealed a legal opinion on trusteeship.
TVS chair emeritus Venu Srinivasan and former defence secretary Vijay Singh have accused Sharma of asking them to resign from the trust, an affiliate of the Tata philanthropic entities. Sharma's alleged action came after Mehli Mistry, who was ousted from Tata Trusts last year, challenged their eligibility to be trustees, stating they are neither Zoroastrians nor do they live in Mumbai—conditions Mistry says are necessary to be a trustee. Srinivasan stepped down, while Singh didn't. On Monday, both of them accused Sharma of bias, stating that while Sharma asked them to quit, he did not share with them a 26-year-old legal opinion rebutting the eligibility condition.
Sharma, who took over as CEO of Tata Trusts in April 2023, defended his action. In a letter on Tuesday, he said he and Tata Trusts chair Noel Tata believed that the legal opinion—which effectively supports the continuance of Srinivasan and Singh on the Bai Hirabai trust—did not substitute for a court order; and, to avoid a potential dispute, they decided to ask Srinivasan and Singh if they wanted to voluntarily step down.
Following this, Sharma said, he shared this view with Singh and Srinivasan on 2 April. Notably, this was a day before Mistry sought a probe by the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner, highlighting the restrictive clauses. Mint has seen Sharma's letter to all 11 trustees of Tata Trusts where he sought to clarify his position.
“I was also informed that Mr. Vijay Singh and Mr. Venu Srinivasan were the only two Trustees on the said Trust who did not meet these criteria,” Sharma wrote in a letter dated 7 April to Tata Trusts chair Noel Tata and 11 other Trustees. Mint has seen a copy of the letter.
“I, thereafter, discussed this with the chairman, Tata Trusts on April 02, 2026, and both of us felt that irrespective of the legal opinion and past precedent, it was open to anyone to question the appointments of non-Zoroastrians made to the Trust, in view of the specific clauses contained in the Trust Deed. It was our considered opinion that a legal opinion per se does not substitute for a judicial pronouncement. In that light, and in good faith, the chairman requested me to speak to both Mr. Vijay Singh and Mr. Venu Srinivasan, apprise them of the situation and ask them if they would like to voluntarily step down from the said Trust.”
However, following Sharma’s 2 April communication, Srinivasan resigned, while Singh asked for more time. Both said in a media interview on Tuesday that the CEO had implicit bias in concealing material information, underscoring the tensions at the philanthropic entities that own Tata Sons.
Tata Trusts' efforts to simplify the structure of the 14 philanthropic entities led the secretarial team to review the trust deeds of many of the individual trusts. However, Mistry cited these clauses to allege non-compliance with the trust’s deed and to question Singh and Srinivasan’s continued service at Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution (BHJTNCI).
Sir Dorabji Tata Trusts (SDTT) and Sir Ratan Tata Trusts (SRTT) hold 27.98% and 23.56%, respectively, of Tata Sons, the holding company of the Tata Group. Along with this 51.54% stake, six other Trusts own 14.36%, making the philanthropic entities the owners with 65.9% of Tata Sons. SDTT runs nine smaller Trusts while SRTT runs five trusts, including Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution.
“On receipt of the relevant documents from my team on April 4, 2026, almost within the hour, I sent out a detailed e-mail to the Trustees of BHJTNCI, enclosing both the Trust Deed and the legal opinion obtained in the year 2000 (a copy of the same was also forwarded to Mr. Venu Srinivasan for his information),” said Sharma.
Sharma, in his letter addressed to 12 Tata Trustees, including the three children of Noel Tata, said that a few media reports alleging that material information was withheld due to implicit bias in the CEO’s actions were “distressing”.
In an interview with the Economic Times, Singh said the CEO's action indicated "seriously flawed governance and an implicit bias against the two trustees.”
“I believe you acted in good faith,” Srinivasan wrote to Sharma later on Tuesday evening. “However, the matter would have been resolved by seeking at least a video conference with Noel, Vijay and myself”
“Thank you for saying that you believe I acted in good faith, which I always have,” Sharma replied an hour later, adding that he was extremely “surprised” and “hurt”. “I am completely at a loss to understand as to how I could have acted on those allegations on the 2nd April, when they were not even made!
“The chairman’s desire and mine, was solely to protect the Trusts from controversy,” wrote Sharma.
“There are two things here. First, a former judge’s opinion has no relevance until a competent court has pronounced a judgment. Until then, a particular trust will continue to operate in accordance with the trust deed or constitution. So, in this case, Tata Trusts chair Noel and CEO Siddharth are right that a former judge's legal view is of no binding value,” said senior Supreme Court lawyer H.P. Ranina.
“Second, the CEO of Tata Trusts did the right thing by asking two leaders and laying the things before them. Now, if one of them resigned, citing personal reasons, and not because of the restrictive clauses in the trust deed, then how can the CEO or the management of Tata Trust be faulted?” said Ranina.
