Tata Trusts backs prospective reading of amendment, unaware of Srinivasan complaint

Tata Trusts on Friday said the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner’s direction to defer the board meeting scheduled for May 16 was issued ex-parte and that the trust believes the Section 30A(2) amendment to the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act is prospective in nature. The trust also said it was not aware of Venu Srinivasan’s complaint until the commissioner’s order was received.

Ex-parte order challenged

In its statement, Tata Trusts said the direction was issued without notice to Sir Ratan Tata Trust and without giving it a hearing before the order was passed. It said the order was based on a complaint by Katyayani Agrawal, a representation by Venu Srinivasan and the Bombay High Court’s May 13 order.

“It is reiterated that the direction was issued ex parte, with no notice being given to the Sir Ratan Tata Trust and no hearing being afforded to it, before the direction was issued,” the trust said. Tata Trusts added that it understands the order is “only in respect of Sir Ratan Tata Trust.”

Amendment seen as prospective

The trust said its reading of the law is that the Section 30A(2) amendment “is prospective in nature and does not affect the appointments of perpetual trustees made prior to its coming into force on 1st September 2025.” It added that this view is backed by “both opinions and clarifications obtained by the Tata Trusts.”

The issue is important because the amendment caps perpetual or life trustees at one-fourth of a public trust’s total board strength. The complaints cited in the commissioner’s order alleged that the Sir Ratan Tata Trust board has three lifetime trustees on a six-member board, which would breach that cap if applied retrospectively.

Tata Trusts also said it was unaware of any complaint filed by Venu Srinivasan until the commissioner’s direction arrived. “Sir Ratan Tata Trust was not aware of any complaint having been filed by Mr. Venu Srinivasan, Trustee, until the receipt of directions from the Charity Commissioner today,” the statement said.

The trust added that Srinivasan had earlier acknowledged the notices for the board meetings originally scheduled for May 8 and later rescheduled to May 16. That makes his complaint a key new element in the dispute, because it was one of the triggers referenced in the commissioner’s order.

What happens next

Tata Trusts said, “The directions received from the Office of Charity Commissioner are being examined by the Sir Ratan Tata Trust.” The statement leaves the immediate board meeting in limbo while the broader legal question — whether the amendment applies prospectively or can affect existing trust boards — remains unresolved.