Tata Trusts to Amend 1923 Deed, Calls Parsi-Only Trustee Clause 'Restrictive'

The Tata Trusts have decided to initiate proceedings to alter the "restrictive" clauses in a 1923 trust deed that prohibited non-Zoroastrians from being trustees. This move follows a recent internal dispute where a former trustee challenged the eligibility of certain non-Parsi trustees. The Trusts stated that non-Zoroastrians have been appointed since 2000 and that the original 1916 codicil creating the trust did not impose such religious restrictions. The decision aims to correct anomalies and align the deed with the Trusts' longstanding values.

Key Points: Tata Trusts Amend 1923 Deed, Remove Non-Parsi Exclusion

  • Amend 1923 trust deed
  • Remove non-Parsi trustee restriction
  • Action follows internal row
  • Trustees affirm CEO's leadership
4 min read

Tata Trust to amend 1923 Deed; calls 'Non-Parsi exclusion' clause 'restrictive'

Tata Trusts move to alter restrictive 1923 deed clause barring non-Zoroastrian trustees, citing alignment with core values and past practice.

"In order to correct anomalies... and to align it with the values that the Tata Trusts have always epitomised - Tata Trusts Statement"

Mumbai, April 19

Following recent row in Tata Trusts which intensified after a former trustee Mehli Mistry objected to the eligibility of certain trustees to two of the several Tata Trusts -- the 2026, the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution and the Sir Dorabji Jamsetji Tata -- the Trustees including Chairman Noel Tata, have now decided to alter the eligibility clauses of the 1923 BHJTNCI trust deed by adopting proceedings before the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner.

"In order to correct anomalies in the Trust Deed and to align it with the values that the Tata Trusts have always epitomised, the Trustees have decided to adopt proceedings before the appropriate authority for alteration of restrictive clauses in respect of eligibility of Trustees", said the Tata Trust in a press statement issued on Sunday.

Terming the clause which prohibits non-Zoroastrians from being Trustees of the BHJTNCI trust as "restrictive", among other clauses in the 1923 deed, the trustees state that non-Zoroastrians (non-Parsis) have always been appointed as trustees following a legal nod obtained by a former Chief Justice of India in the year 2000. Additionally, they assert that the Bai Hirabai Trust, which was established under a 1916 codicil to Sir Ratan Tata's will, has no restrictions on appointing trustees based on religion, ethnicity or race and it operates with limited assets and activities. Moreover, the Trustees have pointed out that there are no such eligibility restrictions in any of the other Tata Trusts.

"Non-Zoroastrians have been continuously appointed to the Trust since the year 2000, following a legal opinion obtained from a former Chief Justice of India....The Bai Hirabai Trust was created under the 1916 Codicil to the Will of Sir Ratan Tata, who died in 1918. The Codicil did not provide for any restrictions in respect of Trustees on grounds of ethnicity, race or religion. The Codicil further provided that the Trustees of the Will of Sir Ratan Tata, who were also Trustees of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) - a Trust created by his Will - would also be Trustees of the Bai Hirabai Trust. In the year 2015, the objects of the Bai Hirabai Trust were enlarged to also cover the general public as beneficiaries of the activities of the Trust. There are no such restrictions as to qualifications for Trusteeship of SRTT, nor of the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT), nor of any other Tata Trust. Nonetheless, it is a fact that the Trust Deed made in 1923 by the then Trustees contained restrictive clauses that, amongst other things, prohibited non-Zoroastrians from being Trustees of the Bai Hirabai Trust. These provisions imposed restrictions not provided for by Sir Ratan Tata's Codicil", the press statement read.

In the press statement, the trustees have also reiterated their full faith and confidence in the Tata Trusts Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Siddharth Sharma and his administrative stewardship of the Trusts.

To recall, the row within Tata Trusts began in November last year, when Mehli Mistry, a former trustee, after being voted against by the Board of Trustees -- despite an October 2024 resolution to renew his trusteeship for a lifetime -- harmoniously exited from the trusts, citing his commitment to his late friend and former Tata conglomerate supremo Ratan N Tata.

Pointedly expressing that he does not seek his reinstatement in the Trusts, Mistry recently challenged the eligibility of Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh's trusteeship in the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution (BHJTNCI) on the ground if the duo is non-Parsi.

Subsequently, in less than twenty-four hours after Mistry's objection, Srinivasan tendered his resignation from BHJTNCI, citing his pre-occupation with other businesses. Subsequently, Mehli has also formally objected to the trusteeship of five trustees, including Noel Tata, Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh in the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT), flagging several illegalities and maladministration.

The Tata Trusts, including Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT) and Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT), own roughly 66% of Tata Sons, the holding company of the Tata Group.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
While inclusivity is important, we must also respect the original intent and wishes of the founders. The Parsi community has contributed immensely to India, and their trusts have specific cultural contexts. The legal process must be followed carefully.
V
Vikram M
The timing seems suspicious, right after objections were raised. Is this a genuine move towards values, or a legal maneuver to sideline a critic? The Tata Group should be above such internal politics. Transparency is key.
R
Rohit P
As an Indian, I'm proud that a major business house is actively removing religious restrictions. Talent and capability should be the only criteria, not community. This sets a great example for other old institutions.
S
Sarah B
Interesting development. It shows how legacy institutions globally are grappling with outdated founding documents. The fact that non-Parsis have been serving since 2000 shows the clause was already not in practice. Making it official is logical.
N
Nikhil C
The core issue seems to be about governance and the proper application of trust laws, not just inclusivity. I hope the Charity Commissioner ensures the amendment is done correctly, respecting both the law and the spirit of philanthropy.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50