Here is why plea before Bombay High Court challenging Sir Ratan Tata Trust board composition was withdrawn

The petition challenging the composition of the board of Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) was withdrawn from the Bombay High Court on Wednesday. [Suresh Patilkhede v. State of Maharashtra & Ors].

The petition, filed by Thane resident Suresh Patilkhede, had sought reconstitution of the SRTT board. It contended that the trust's present composition violated a 2025 amendment to the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.

However, when the matter came up before the Court, a Bench of Justices Advait Sethna and Sandesh Patil observed that the petitioner had not been fair to the Court.

The Court noted that Patilkhede was not the original complainant in related proceedings before the Charity Commissioner. It further observed that the petition did not disclose who the original complainant was.

Following the Court’s observations, the lawyer appearing for Patilkhede sought liberty to withdraw the petition.

The petition was accordingly withdrawn.

In his petition, Patilkhede had claimed that three out of the six trustees on the SRTT board were life trustees, in breach of a statutory cap introduced by the 2025 amendment. The amendment places a limit on the number of life or perpetual trustees where the trust instrument is silent on such appointments.

The SRTT board currently has six trustees - Jimmy Naval Tata, Jehangir HC Jehangir, Noel Naval Tata, Venu Srinivasan, Vijay Singh and Darius Khambata.

The petition had contended that Jimmy Naval Tata, Jehangir HC Jehangir and Noel Naval Tata were life trustees, and that their continuance in such capacity violated the amended law.

According to the petitioner, SRTT was established in 1919 pursuant to the 1916 will and codicil of Sir Ratanji Jamsetji Tata. The plea said that these instruments did not contain any clause permitting appointment of trustees for life.

Apart from reconstitution of the board, the petitioner had also sought an order restraining the SRTT board from passing or implementing any decisions until the board was reconstituted in accordance with the amended law.

He had further urged the Court to declare that actions taken by the present board after September 1, 2025 were void and liable to be set aside.