A year after the death of Ratan Tata, the legendary industrialist who transformed the Tata Group into a global, technologically advanced conglomerate, India’s largest business house is once again battling internal discord and external headwinds.
The $328 billion salt-to-steel empire — which owns iconic British brands such as Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) and Tetley Tea, and assembles iPhones for Apple in India — has been hit by boardroom turmoil at the very top. A simmering power struggle among trustees of Tata Trusts, the controlling shareholder of Tata Sons, has reportedly forced government intervention to prevent a repeat of the bitter 2016 feud that erupted after the ouster of former chairman Cyrus Mistry.
Although the Union government is believed to have mediated a temporary truce, recent reports suggest that Mehli Mistry — a close confidant of the late Ratan Tata and a trustee of Tata Trusts — has been removed from the board.
According to Mircea Raianu of the University of Maryland, who has written extensively on the Tata legacy, the dispute reflects “unresolved business” — the perennial question of who truly controls the Tata Group, and how far the philanthropic arm can exert influence over commercial operations.
The Tata Group’s unique structure lies at the heart of the problem. Tata Trusts, which holds about 66 percent of Tata Sons — the unlisted holding company that controls 26 listed Tata firms — is a charitable organisation. While this setup has enabled tax and regulatory advantages and allowed the group to channel profits into philanthropy, it has also created friction between its charitable mission and commercial interests.
The current tussle stems from differences among trustees over board appointments, funding approvals, and the potential public listing of Tata Sons. While Tata Trusts currently has three nominees on the Tata Sons board, some trustees are said to be seeking greater say in business decisions.
“The Tata Trusts nominees technically have veto rights on key decisions, but their role has traditionally been supervisory rather than executive,” one source said. “Now, a few trustees want more direct control over commercial matters.”
The Shapoorji Pallonji (SP) Group, the largest minority shareholder in Tata Sons with an 18 percent stake, is reportedly pressing for the holding company to go public — a move strongly opposed by most Tata trustees.
Proponents of the idea argue that a listing would enhance transparency, unlock value for shareholders, and strengthen corporate governance. However, Tata insiders fear it could erode the Trusts’ long-term control and expose the company to short-term market pressures, especially when many of its new ventures — including semiconductors and electric vehicles — are still in early stages of growth.
Raianu points out that a public listing would run counter to global trends, where many large conglomerates are shifting towards foundation ownership to promote long-term stability — a model inspired by Tata itself. “But privately held entities also face the risk of opacity and internal conflict,” he notes.
The power struggle comes at a difficult time for the group. Air India, which the Tatas acquired from the government in 2021, is still reeling from a deadly crash earlier this year, undermining its ambitious turnaround plan. A cyberattack in September crippled JLR’s UK factories, pushing British car production to a seven-decade low. And Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) — the software powerhouse that contributes nearly half the group’s revenues — has faced layoffs and the abrupt termination of a $1 billion deal with retailer Marks & Spencer.
The ongoing discord risks damaging the Tata brand. These boardroom battles are feared to unsettle investors and raise questions about who is really in charge.
Amid the turbulence, Tata Sons chairman N Chandrasekaran’s tenure has reportedly been extended. While insiders say the rift has not directly affected the board, it has become an “unnecessary distraction” for him at a critical juncture.
The Tata Group has weathered similar crises before — including intense internal clashes in the 1990s when Ratan Tata sought to modernise the conglomerate’s structure, and the bruising legal fight that followed Mistry’s removal in 2016. But this time, experts say, the situation is more precarious.
“In the past, TCS or Tata Steel acted as stabilising anchors during times of uncertainty,” says Raianu. “Today, with TCS facing its own headwinds and its contribution under strain, the group lacks a comparable pillar of strength.”
Still, he adds, the current crisis may yet prove transformative. “It is destabilising and potentially destructive in the short term,” he says, “but it could eventually lead to a more transparent, accountable, and modern governance model for one of India’s most enduring business institutions.”