A fresh debate has emerged over the future of Tata Sons after Tata Trusts vice chairman Vijay Singh and Venu Srinivasan responded to concerns raised by senior advocate Darius Khambatta. In a letter dated November 2, Khambatta had informed Tata Trusts chairman Noel Tata that he would not seek reappointment as a trustee. His communication also raised questions about Tata Sons’ governance, its discussions with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the possibility of a stock market listing and the broader functioning of the Tata Group.
Singh and Srinivasan sent their response on November 11. In the letter, they clarified that they were not questioning Khambatta’s integrity but argued that his communication did not present several important aspects of the matter in their entirety.
Singh also emphasised that impartiality requires applying the same standards to allies and opponents rather than judging them differently.
Tata Sons’ Discussions With RBI: What Did Vijay Singh Say?
Khambatta had questioned the outcome of Tata Sons’ discussions with the RBI, describing the engagement as ineffective and unsuccessful.
Responding to these concerns, Singh said the discussions with the central bank began in 2023. Subsequently, Tata Sons repaid its loan and submitted an application for cancellation of its registration in March 2024. According to him, trustees were kept informed throughout the process, and none of them, including Khambatta, had raised concerns at that time about the efforts being inadequate.
Singh further stated that after a review lasting around two years, the RBI decided that Tata Sons would continue to be classified as an NBFC with significant importance in the financial system and would be subject to applicable listing requirements.
He maintained that this was a regulatory decision rather than evidence of a failure in negotiations.
Singh also argued that securing special exemptions through negotiations would not necessarily reflect the values associated with the Tata Group.
Why Vijay Singh and Venu Srinivasan Do Not See Listing as a Threat
Khambatta had expressed concerns that a stock market listing of Tata Sons could put the existing Tata Group structure at risk.
However, Singh and Srinivasan disagreed with this assessment. They said they had not seen evidence suggesting that listing Tata Sons would threaten the group’s long-term existence or its operating model.
To support their position, they referred to international examples such as Novo Nordisk, Hershey, Lundbeck and Demant, which are publicly listed despite having links with foundation ownership or control.
They also cited Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), arguing that its stock market listing has not weakened the identity of the Tata Group.
The response further pointed to listed Tata companies, including TCS, Tata Steel, Tata Power and Tata Motors, which have undertaken major investments supporting long-term business plans and national development. Tata Motors’ efforts to revive Jaguar Land Rover and expand into electric vehicles were mentioned as examples.
According to Singh and Srinivasan, listing can strengthen transparency and corporate discipline rather than restrict future investments. They also maintained that Tata Trusts would continue to hold their stake, preserving their dividend income and ability to support charitable activities.
They therefore rejected the suggestion that listing would create a separation between the company and the trusts.
JRD Tata’s Philosophy and Questions Over Trust Governance
In their response, Singh and Srinivasan referred to a statement associated with JRD Tata: “Whatever India needs.”
They argued that serving the country also requires respecting laws and institutions, even when regulatory decisions do not match the group’s expectations.
Singh questioned whether Khambatta’s objections were primarily intended to protect the Tata Group’s existing structure or preserve the influence of the current trust leadership over Tata Sons.
He also highlighted the responsibilities of Tata Trusts as tax-exempt charitable organisations. According to him, if retaining control becomes an objective in itself, questions could arise about the responsibilities of trustees and the justification for their tax-exempt status.
Supreme Court Judgment in Tata-Mistry Case Also Cited
Singh also challenged Khambatta’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Tata Sons versus Cyrus Mistry dispute.
He said the Supreme Court had upheld the Articles of Association of Tata Sons, but the judgment did not remove the independent responsibilities of directors towards the company.
Singh further argued that the ruling did not mean directors appointed by Tata Trusts were required to vote only according to the trusts’ instructions.
According to his interpretation, directors remain accountable to the company even when they have been nominated by its trusts.
The exchange highlights continuing differences over Tata Sons’ regulatory position, potential listing, governance structure and the role of Tata Trusts in the group’s future.
Disclaimer: This article is based on the statements and correspondence described in the supplied information. The views attributed to the individuals reflect their respective positions and should not be treated as independently established conclusions. Developments relating to Tata Sons, its regulatory status and governance may be subject to further clarification or official decisions.