Senior Supreme Court advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi has been retained by Tata Trusts to represent them in their escalating legal dispute with Tata Sons. Singhvi, a Congress Rajya Sabha MP, expressed profound 'sadness and regret' regarding the conflict, given his prior close association with Ratan Tata and his personal connections with key figures on both sides of the contention.
The legal battle stems from a disagreement over the reappointment of Tata Sons Chairman N Chandrasekaran. On September 17, 2026, the Tata Sons board voted to reappoint Chandrasekaran for another five-year term. However, Tata Trusts chairman Noel Tata opposed this resolution, deeming the decision 'illegal' and a 'legal nullity.' Tata Trusts holds approximately 66% of Tata Sons.
Core Issues in the Tata Trusts Dispute
- Chairman's Reappointment: The primary point of contention is the legality and validity of N Chandrasekaran's reappointment as Tata Sons Chairman.
- Trusts' Decision-Making: Singhvi questioned any attempts to 'stymie democratic intra-Trust decision-making' by placing unwarranted restrictions on Tata Trusts' ability to convene meetings.
- Shareholder Rights: The senior advocate emphasized that fundamental shareholder ownership rights cannot be nullified, warning that such actions could undermine corporate governance across Indian companies.
- Historical Relationship: Singhvi highlighted the over century-long 'hyphenated relationship' between Tata Trusts and Tata Sons, stating that 'rupturing' this bond seems 'unthinkable.'
- Unanimity and Veto Powers: He defended the long-standing practice of requiring unanimity in Tata Trusts' voting and the application of its veto powers, arguing that ignoring these 'unvarying preconditions' is unjustified.
- Supreme Court Judgment: Singhvi referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in the Tata-Mistry case, which upheld Tata Trusts' primacy and the special articles in Tata Sons' constitution, asserting that this has been 'selectively forgotten.'
- Potential Listing of Tata Sons: Another facet of the disagreement concerns a potential public listing of Tata Sons, especially after the RBI declined the company's request to relinquish its Core Investment Company registration.
Singhvi acknowledged that, in the absence of 'collegiality and conviviality,' these complex and interconnected issues would now necessitate legal solutions. The dispute signals a significant legal challenge for one of India's most prominent corporate groups.