Tata Trusts votes out Mehli Mistry in a historic public split—marking the end of an era of silence and the beginning of open factional power.
Brajesh Mishra
On October 28, 2025, history didn’t just repeat at Tata Trusts—it declared itself, loud and unmistakable. A majority of trustees voted against Mehli Mistry’s reappointment to two of India’s most influential charitable boards.
For an institution that has always wrapped its decisions in silence, the very act of a public vote is a seismic moment. This isn’t merely a power shuffle. It’s a crack in the mythology of unanimity that has shielded Tata Trusts for over a century.
Mistry’s three-year term as trustee of the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and the Sir Ratan Tata Trust expired on October 28. A unanimous vote was required to reappoint him for lifetime trusteeship. He got a majority rejection instead.
Noel Tata, Venu Srinivasan, and Vijay Singh voted against. Darius Khambata, Pramit Jhaveri, and Jehangir HC Jehangir supported him. Under Tata Trusts’ structure, one dissent kills a proposal. Three dissenters bury it.
By sundown, Mehli Mistry—the quiet insider long seen as Ratan Tata’s most trusted confidant—was out.
First, Ratan Tata’s absence. Since his death in 2024, the Trusts have been caught in a vacuum of authority. Noel Tata stepped in, but without unanimous blessing.
Second, a leadership rebellion. When Mistry’s faction opposed Vijay Singh’s reappointment earlier this year, the long-standing “no dissent” code broke.
Third, the Shapoorji Pallonji debt squeeze. Mistry, linked to the SP family, has been quietly pushing for governance reforms that could allow an eventual Tata Sons listing or partial buyback—something Noel’s camp resists.
Fourth, government pressure. With Tata Group tied to critical national infrastructure, New Delhi made it clear that prolonged infighting would not be tolerated.
All of this created the perfect storm for a purge.
For 157 years, Tata Trusts operated under a quiet pact—unanimity in public, disagreement in private. No transcripts. No leaks. No daylight between decision and announcement.
That spell broke with this vote. The rejection happened through a written circular resolution—and the split leaked to the press within hours. Names. Numbers. Sides.
Once an institution reveals its fractures publicly, there’s no going back. A single dissent is no longer a whisper—it’s a headline.
Mehli Mistry represents the old order: personal loyalty to Ratan Tata, informal networks, and discretion over process.
Noel Tata, now chair, embodies consolidation—pushing formal policies, age caps, and a structure less reliant on personal relationships.
Venu Srinivasan, the swing vote, represents the business establishment that trusts Noel’s professionalized governance more than Mistry’s legacy loyalty.
Darius Khambata and Pramit Jhaveri, who backed Mistry, are the proceduralists: defending the sanctity of governance rules over shifting alliances.
This wasn’t a clash of personalities. It was a collision of eras.
Mistry is expected to challenge the decision legally.
The grounds are ripe: a prior Trusts resolution guaranteeing lifetime trusteeship for existing members, the selective application of that rule, and regulatory uncertainty around Tata Sons’ future.
What was once internal board drama now risks turning into a public legal war—the first of its kind since the Cyrus Mistry ouster.
Mistry didn’t fall because he was weak. He fell because he represented a system built around a single patriarch’s personal trust.
When Ratan Tata was alive, Mehli was indispensable. Now, his loyalty to the old ways has become a liability for the new leadership asserting control.
Every succession story eventually chooses between legacy and control. Noel Tata made that choice.
Who is Mehli Mistry?
A long-time insider and Ratan Tata confidant with deep family ties to the SP Group.
Why was he voted out?
Fissures between old-guard loyalty and new-guard consolidation under Noel Tata.
Why does this matter?
Tata Trusts controls 51% of Tata Sons. Every shift at the Trusts shapes India’s largest conglomerate.
Will there be legal action?
Highly likely. The vote violated prior resolutions granting permanent trusteeship.
Why is this historic?
It’s the first time Tata Trusts admitted its divisions publicly instead of hiding behind a unanimous facade.
Exclusive Content
Sign up for the Daily newsletter to get your biggest stories, handpicked for you each day.
Trending Now! in last 24hrs
