A year after the passing of Ratan Tata, the Tata Group, India’s sprawling salt-to-steel conglomerate, is again navigating a storm of internal discord and business setbacks. The company, which Ratan Tata transformed into a globally recognised, technologically forward empire owning British brands Jaguar Land Rover and Tetley, and manufacturing iPhones in India, is now battling a fresh leadership crisis reminiscent of the 2016 public fallout that surrounded the ouster of former chairman Cyrus Mistry.
For months, a dispute among trustees of Tata Trusts — the philanthropic body that owns 66% of Tata Sons — has spilled into the public domain. Reports indicate that Mehli Mistry, a longtime confidant of Ratan Tata and a trustee, has been removed from his position. The Tata Group has not confirmed this, and the media has been unable to independently verify the claim. The Indian government had intervened to prevent the crisis from escalating into another courtroom spectacle, and while a temporary settlement appeared to have been brokered, tensions have resurfaced.
According to Prof Mircea Raianu of the University of Maryland, who has studied the Tata empire extensively, the fight is not merely a disagreement among individuals—it captures unresolved questions at the heart of the conglomerate: who controls the group, and how much influence the majority shareholder, Tata Trusts, can exercise in commercial decision-making. The Tata Group’s corporate architecture is unique. The unlisted holding company, Tata Sons, is controlled by a charitable trust—an arrangement that grants regulatory and tax benefits and underscores the group’s historic identity as a corporate house with social purpose. However, experts say the blend of philanthropic mission and commercial ambition has repeatedly led to governance friction.
The timing of the rift could not be worse. The group is dealing with business challenges across multiple fronts—from venturing into capital-intensive areas like electric vehicles and semiconductors, to rebuilding Air India after a fatal crash earlier this year. Tata Sons has not publicly commented on the infighting, but insiders say the conflict stems from disagreements over board appointments, funding approvals, and a controversial push to publicly list Tata Sons. While some trustees want greater power in influencing strategic decisions, Tata Trusts’ representatives on the board traditionally play a supervisory role. Now, certain trustees are reportedly demanding more authority in the company’s commercial affairs.
The biggest flashpoint involves the Shapoorji Pallonji (SP) Group, which holds 18% of Tata Sons and has long pushed for the holding company to go public. The SP Group argues that a listing would improve transparency and unlock shareholder value. Tata Trusts, however, fears that going public would undermine long-term decision-making, expose the company to market pressure, and weaken philanthropic control over the empire at a time when newer divisions are still fragile.
The confrontation has raised serious questions about governance, brand stability and investor confidence. Public relations expert Dilip Cherian, who previously worked with former chairman Cyrus Mistry, says the conflict adds to the series of blows the group’s reputation has suffered—from the cyberattack on JLR that hurt UK car production to turbulence at Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), which has seen layoffs and the sudden exit of a major client. He warns that investors will now wonder who truly calls the shots within the Tata system.
Meanwhile, the tenure of Tata Sons chairman N Chandrasekaran has reportedly been extended. Although he remains insulated from the trustee feud, insiders say the ongoing turmoil is an unnecessary distraction at a critical time. The Tata Group has experienced bitter internal fights before, but experts argue the current crisis is different. Unlike earlier decades, when TCS or Tata Steel could financially anchor the group during uncertainty, TCS itself is under business pressure, leaving the group without a clear stabilising pillar.
Prof Raianu believes the conflict could damage the group in the short run but may eventually force a more transparent and modern governance structure to emerge. The broader question remains whether the Tata Group can uphold its legacy of stability and social purpose while navigating the realities of global corporate competition.
