Mehli Mistry Questions Noel Tata’s Citizenship in Ongoing Tata Trusts Legal Dispute

The legal dispute between Mehli Mistry and Tata Trusts has intensified following a new submission filed before the Charity Commissioner of Maharashtra (CCM) on Thursday. Mehli Mistry has questioned the Irish citizenship and tax residency status of Tata Trusts Chairman Noel Tata.

The filing forms part of Mistry's defense of his right to object to change reports filed by Tata Trusts. These change reports were submitted regarding the cessation of Mistry's trusteeship after board members voted against his reappointment to three trusts, including the Sir Ratan Tata Trust.

Previously, Tata Trusts had challenged Mistry's locus standi to file objections by pointing to Mistry's own UK citizenship and UAE tax residency status. These objections were raised in response to change reports submitted by the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT) and the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution.

In his latest rejoinder, Mistry stated that Noel Tata holds an Irish citizenship and a UAE Golden Visa. He has requested the CCM to direct Tata to file an affidavit to clarify these facts. Mistry argued that if foreign citizenship and overseas residence are treated as relevant considerations, they must be applied to all trustees with equal rigor rather than exempting the trust's leadership.

The disagreement also extends to the eligibility criteria for trusteeship of the Bai Hirabai Trust. Mistry maintains that the trust deed restricts trusteeship strictly to Parsi Zoroastrians. Conversely, Tata Trusts argues that these specific conditions conflict with the original will and codicil governing the trust and should not be relied upon.

In June, Mistry initially filed objections against the change reports, alleging misgovernance within the trusts. Tata Trusts dismissed these objections as extraneous. Defending his actions, Mistry stated that his complaint is valid and that he is not a stranger interfering in trust affairs.

Additionally, Mistry questioned the validity of Venu Srinivasan’s vote during an October board meeting. Mistry claims that Srinivasan’s term as a trustee ended on October 23 and he was only reappointed on November 12, meaning he was not eligible to vote on Mistry's reappointment at the October 28 meeting.

Tata Trusts did not immediately respond to Mistry’s latest filing. The matter has been scheduled for a hearing before the CCM on December 3.

"Governance disputes within large philanthropic trusts highlight the critical need for absolute transparency and adherence to established protocols. When high-profile legal challenges arise around board voting validity and trustee eligibility, it underscores the importance of clear governance frameworks and compliance. Maintaining institutional stability is essential for preserving public trust and ensuring long-term operational continuity in legacy organizations." — Dr. Shishir Gupta, Founder & CEO, StartupLanes