KOCHI: For over a century, the Tata Group has been more than just a business conglomerate. It has been the moral compass of India’s corporate world – a rare institution where trust, ethics, and philanthropy have guided ‘capitalism’.
But a series of developments in recent months has cast an uncomfortable shadow over that legacy.
At the heart of the turbulence is Tata Trusts, which owns a 66 per cent stake in Tata Sons, the holding company of the Rs15 lakh crore-plus (Rs15trillion) Tata Group. A year after the passing of Ratan Tata, the edifice that long seemed infallible is showing signs of strain.
Boardroom disagreements, leadership extensions beyond established rules, and unresolved questions over governance have combined to create unease around an institution once regarded as the gold standard of corporate integrity.
In a significant departure from group norms, Tata Trusts has reportedly cleared a third term for Tata Sons chairman N. Chandrasekaran, bypassing the retirement rule that caps executive roles at 65.
Continuity is key
The decision, proposed by Noel Tata and Venu Srinivasan and cleared at a Trusts meeting on September 11, is said to have been driven by a desire for continuity as the group navigates major projects in semiconductors, EV batteries, and Air India.
The move, however, marks the first time the retirement ceiling has been formally waived for an active executive, breaking with a precedent set by Ratan Tata himself when he stepped down at 75.
The decision comes against the backdrop of widening divisions within Tata Trusts. A faction led by trustee Mehli Mistry recently blocked the reappointment of Vijay Singh to the Tata Sons board, signalling the growing assertiveness of some trustees and eroding the long-held tradition of unanimity.
Singh later remarked that voting itself was unprecedented at the Trusts, noting that Ratan Tata had always insisted on consensus and harmony. This internal churn has not escaped the government’s attention.
Earlier this month, Tata Trusts chairman Noel Tata, accompanied by Chandrasekaran and two other trustees, met Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in New Delhi – a sign that the Centre is keen to prevent a public rupture in India’s most respected corporate institution.
Listing, a question in hand
Meanwhile, the Shapoorji Pallonji (SP) Group, which holds 18.37 per cent in Tata Sons, has renewed its push for a public listing of the holding company, arguing that transparency and accountability are in line with the vision of Jamsetji Tata.
The group has also approached the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), seeking clarity on the status of Tata Sons’ registration as a Core Investment Company. The SP family maintains that a listed Tata Sons would strengthen governance and ensure regular inflows to Tata Trusts for philanthropic activities.
As these fault lines emerge, the Tata Group’s leadership has continued to deliver strong operational results – nearly doubling revenue and tripling profit under Chandrasekaran’s tenure. Yet, even as Tata Sons’ financials appear robust, the moral authority that underpins its corporate image now faces a subtle but serious test.
The Tatas have long represented an idea larger than business – that enterprise could coexist with conscience, and profit with purpose. As the Trusts navigate internal dissent and evolving governance norms, preserving that moral equilibrium becomes critical.
For Corporate India, which often looks to the Tatas as its ethical anchor, any crack in that foundation would carry implications far beyond Bombay House.
The country, quite simply, can’t afford a crack in the moral hub of Corporate India.
