By Shivanand Pandit
Over the past year, the Tata Group, headquartered in Mumbai has found itself navigating an unusual stretch of turbulence. For an institution that has long symbolized credibility and stability, the frequency and intensity of recent developments have raised questions among observers, even as the underlying causes remain unclear to many.
At the centre of this challenging phase is Natarajan Chandrasekaran, who chairs the $ 180 billion conglomerate. Leading a 158-year-old enterprise with a workforce exceeding one million is no small task in ordinary times—doing so amid persistent scrutiny is another matter altogether. Headlines over the past twelve months suggest a pattern of strain rather than isolated incidents. Much of the attention has converged on four key pillars of the group: Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), Air India, Tata Trusts, and Tata Sons. Together, these developments have unsettled stakeholders, particularly because the Tata name, once almost universally associated with integrity has seldom encountered such a sustained wave of negative attention in its long and influential history.
On 19 April 2026, a fresh dispute began within Tata Trusts after emails were sent to senior officials and the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner. These emails raised concerns about how the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) is being managed and asked for urgent action. Tata Trusts is India’s largest charitable group and holds a controlling stake in Tata Sons, the parent company of the Tata Group. Because of this, any governance issue within the trusts has wider implications.
The complaint was sent by a law firm on behalf of former acting chief justice of the Madras High Court, T. Raja. It argues that SRTT is violating the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, especially a 2025 amendment that limits the number of “lifetime trustees.” According to the law, only one-fourth of a trust’s board can hold permanent positions unless clearly allowed in the trust deed. SRTT has six trustees, but three of them—Noel Tata, Jimmy Tata, and Jehangir Jehangir—are lifetime trustees. This exceeds the legal limit, which should allow only one such trustee. A legal opinion by a former Supreme Court judge supports this claim and says the trust must correct its structure immediately. The complaint has asked the Charity Commissioner to investigate, remove the extra lifetime trustees if needed, and ensure the trust follows the law. It also warns that ignoring the issue could damage public trust.
This challenge is significant because Tata Trusts have long been known for strong governance. While earlier objections by former trustee Mehli Mistry were seen by some as personal disputes, this case carries more weight due to legal backing from senior judges. The 2025 amendment was introduced to improve transparency and prevent too much power being concentrated in a few individuals. It created two types of trustees, Tenure trustees, who serve five-year terms and must be reappointed unanimously and Lifetime trustees, limited to 25% of the board. If enforced, this rule could affect leadership within Tata Trusts. For example, Noel Tata, currently a lifetime trustee and chairman, may need to step down from permanent status and seek reappointment every five years. Even one opposing vote could remove him.
At the same time, the Tata Group is facing internal challenges. Losses in businesses like Air India and Tata Digital have raised concerns. Noel Tata has reportedly asked for a clear recovery plan, opposed taking on more debt, and insisted that Tata Sons should remain unlisted. However, regulators may still require the company to list due to new rules. There is also an ongoing dispute with the Mistry family, which could be easier to resolve if Tata Sons becomes a listed company and allows them to sell their stake. Separately, Mehli Mistry has objected to proposed changes in another trust—the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution. He argues that its original deed clearly limits trusteeship to practising Zoroastrians from specific locations and that changing such an old document may not be legally valid. He also questioned whether current trustees meet these conditions. Tata Trusts, however, stated that non-Zoroastrians have been appointed for years based on legal advice and that the proposed changes aim to remove outdated restrictions and make the trust more inclusive. Overall, these developments highlight growing governance concerns within Tata Trusts. The decisions taken now could reshape how the trusts function and test the group’s long-standing reputation for ethical and transparent management.
Not the first time for Tata Group
In 1991, when J. R. D. Tata chose Ratan Tata as chairman, some powerful leaders within the group—like Russi Mody, Ajit Kerkar, and Darbari Seth—strongly opposed the move. However, Ratan Tata handled the situation, and the opposition eventually faded. A similar situation happened in 2016 when Ratan Tata and Cyrus Mistry had a fallout. Even though Tata had supported Mistry’s appointment in 2011, he later removed him in a major boardroom conflict. In 2017, Chandrasekaran became chairman, and things remained stable until recently.
But Chandrasekaran may be losing sleep over four companies mentioned above.
TCS, the Tata Group’s flagship and India’s biggest IT firm, has recently been in the spotlight for serious concerns. Its BPO unit in Nashik, Maharashtra, is facing allegations related to religious conversion, sexual harassment, and blackmail. Around eight women employees have reportedly filed complaints against senior staff. There are also claims of a “grooming gang”-like pattern, similar to cases reported in the UK. A process associate, Nida Khan—nicknamed the “Lady Captain” is said to be missing, which has raised fears of a larger organised network. Public figures like S. Gurumurthy and T.V. Mohandas Pai have also commented on the issue, adding to the attention. The company has said it will follow a strict zero-tolerance approach and act quickly. Meanwhile, agencies like the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) have stepped in to investigate. The situation is likely to keep TCS in the news and raises a key question: how did such serious issues go unnoticed by top management?
Tata Sons, which controls 29 listed Tata companies, is facing pressure from the Reserve Bank of India to get listed on the stock market. This is because it has been classified as an upper-layer NBFC, with assets of about ₹1.75 lakh crore as of March 2025. At the same time, its biggest minority shareholder, the Shapoorji Pallonji Group, wants to sell and benefit from its 18.37% stake. However, Noel Tata is said to be against listing the company. On the other hand, some trustees like Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh support the idea, believing it could increase the company’s value. Instead of listing, Noel Tata has reportedly asked N. Chandrasekaran to find other ways to buy out the SP Group’s stake. These differing views among the trustees have kept Tata Sons in the spotlight.
When the Tata Group took back Air India in 2022—almost 70 years after it was nationalised in 1953—people had high hopes. The airline showed some early improvement, but soon faced several setbacks. In 2022, a shocking incident on a New York–Delhi flight, where a drunk passenger misbehaved with an elderly woman, drew nationwide outrage. A few years later, a similar case involving a Japanese executive on a Delhi–Bangkok flight again hurt the airline’s image. The situation worsened with a tragic crash in Ahmedabad in June 2025, when a Dreamliner went down shortly after take-off, killing 260 people. Pilot bodies like Air Line Pilots Association India and Indian Commercial Pilots Association have disagreed with the early investigation findings, which hinted at possible pilot error. The matter is still unresolved. At the same time, the airline is facing heavy losses of around ₹20,500 crore in FY26, and CEO Campbell Wilson has stepped down, adding to concerns. Noel Tata has reportedly asked Chandrasekaran for clarity on when the airline will turn around. The group is now working with Singapore Airlines, which owns a 25% stake, to improve performance. Because it deals directly with customers, Air India is likely to stay under close public and media watch.
Time for a Tata Group overhaul
To improve governance standards and give the Shapoorji Pallonji Group a clear exit option, Tata Sons could explore a stock market listing. Such a step would likely enhance transparency, unlock shareholder value, and resolve ongoing concerns around ownership and liquidity.
From a leadership perspective, extending the tenure of Chandrasekaran by at least three more years could provide much-needed continuity. Stable leadership would be especially important as the group navigates current challenges and long-term strategic shifts.
A stronger and more visible role for Noel Tata could also be beneficial. If he were to chair two of the group’s key companies, it could reinforce family involvement while helping guide broader strategy and decision-making.
At the same time, giving Neville Tata greater operational responsibility may help prepare the next generation for leadership roles within the group, ensuring a smoother transition in the future.
Lastly, reshaping Tata Trusts in line with Noel Tata’s approach could bring better alignment between governance structures and long-term objectives, while also enabling more efficient and cohesive decision-making across the group.
The suggested steps for improving the group from within appear practical and achievable. However, the bigger question is whether N. Chandrasekaran can deliver a strong turnaround. His real challenge will be balancing the expectations and pressures of multiple stakeholders, including the media, shareholders, vendors, customers, employees, and government authorities. At the same time, he will need to ensure that the reputation and strength of the Tata brand remain intact and emerge even stronger. Ultimately, whether he succeeds in this complex task will only become clear with time.
