Mistry’s tenure ends: court finds trusts can continue operating

At a hearing this week, two Tata charitable trusts told the charity commissioner that former trustee Mehli Mistry no longer has legal standing to challenge their governance, setting up a clash over who may lawfully question how the foundations are run. The dispute centers on whether Mistry’s trusteeship expired last year and on contested provisions in the trust deed that define who may serve as a trustee.

The Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT) and the Bai Hirabai Jamestji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution told the regulator that Mistry’s term as trustee ended on October 28 of last year, and that he therefore cannot bring complaints about their internal administration. In filings to the charity commissioner, Bai Hirabai rejected Mistry’s interpretation of specific trust clauses that lay out residency and religious eligibility for trustees.

Legal arguments focus on eligibility clauses

Bai Hirabai’s affidavit challenges how Clauses 6 and 18 of its 1923 trust deed have been read. Those clauses, the trust says, list qualifications based on faith and domicile. The trust argues these provisions conflict with the original Will and Codicil that established the foundation and so should not be given practical effect in the current dispute.

Mistry has responded by asking the trust to produce a sworn statement confirming that its proposed replacement reporting trustee, Noel Tata, meets the trust-deed requirements. He told the charity commissioner that any substitute trustee must satisfy the same conditions set out in the deed — including being a Parsi adherent of the Zoroastrian faith and a permanent resident of Mumbai or Navsari — before being permitted to act in the matter raised by him.

The trust has also moved to substitute Noel Tata as the reporting trustee in this matter after Vijay Singh ceased to be a trustee earlier this year; Mistry insists the replacement be formally declared eligible before the substitution is accepted.

• Key dates: Trusteeship expiry claimed for Mistry — Oct. 28 (last year); charity office issued an order of interest on May 15 affecting the Sir Ratan Tata Trust.
• Core issues: Whether Mistry has standing; whether Clauses 6 and 18 should be enforced; whether Noel Tata is eligible to serve as reporting trustee.
• Procedural step: Bai Hirabai asked the commissioner to accept Noel Tata as reporting trustee; Mistry seeks a sworn affidavit confirming his eligibility.

Separate operational concern at Sir Ratan Tata Trust

In a separate hearing, the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) told the commissioner that an earlier order from May 15 — which prevents it from convening meetings — has made routine functioning difficult. The trust described the order as a practical obstacle to carrying out governance and oversight responsibilities while the regulator evaluates related complaints.

That disclosure adds a secondary layer to the dispute: beyond questions of individual standing and interpretive points of the trust deed, the regulator’s interim directions have immediate administrative consequences for trusteeship, decision-making and grant management.

The charity commissioner now has to decide two interlinked questions: whether Mistry retained the right to challenge the trusts after his alleged term end, and whether the proposed reporting trustee satisfies the documentary and statutory qualifications. The outcome could determine whether the inquiry proceeds and whether any interim governance measures remain in place.

For donors, partners and beneficiaries, the case underscores that procedural technicalities — such as who qualifies as a trustee under historical trust documents — can materially affect how large philanthropic institutions operate in the short term. The commissioner’s next orders will clarify whether the matter advances to a full investigation or is curtailed on procedural grounds.