The potential listing of Tata Sons, the primary stakeholder in the Tata conglomerate, has ignited significant discussions amid the ongoing complexities surrounding the Tata group. Discord has emerged within two key entities, Tata Trusts and Tata Sons, as trustees grapple with differing strategies, regulatory hurdles, and governance issues.
Central to this discourse is a widening rift regarding the future trajectory of the group. A faction of trustees is advocating for a public listing to facilitate capital generation for growth, while Noel Tata stands firmly against this proposal. Growing apprehensions over escalating losses in various unlisted subsidiaries have raised critical questions about financial viability and capital management. Tata Trusts owns a substantial 66% of Tata Sons, which serves as the primary shareholder in Tata companies.
The scenario is further complicated by increasing debt burdens, lackluster performance of certain ventures, and internal governance challenges. The question of leadership continuity, particularly concerning the extension of N Chandrasekaran as Chairman of Tata Sons, has also come under scrutiny, adding to the prevailing uncertainty at the executive level.
Shifts in Consensus Culture
The previously strong sense of unity within Tata Trusts appears to be diminishing. Under Ratan Tata’s leadership, decisions were often reached through a consensus-driven approach; however, this methodology seems to be fading.
Recently, the current leadership of Tata Trusts, headed by Noel Tata, requested that Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh resign from their positions on the Bai Hirabai Trust, with only Srinivasan complying. In a notable incident in October 2025, Mehli Mistry’s reappointment was blocked by fellow trustees, and in September 2025, Vijay Singh was ousted from a Tata Sons board position.
Currently, both Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh are advocating for the listing of Tata Sons, seemingly contrary to Noel Tata’s stance.
The discussion surrounding the potential listing of Tata Sons has resurfaced with varied opinions among Tata Trusts’ trustees. While certain members favor listing the holding company on stock markets, Chairman Noel Tata is reportedly opposed to this strategy. Previously, Tata Sons sought deregistration as a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), a move perceived as an effort to sidestep stringent regulations governing “upper-layer” NBFCs.
Trustees Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh have openly supported the idea of listing Tata Sons via an initial public offering, in stark contrast to a resolution passed a year prior that aimed to keep the company unlisted. Singh has pointed out that although Tata Sons has traditionally remained unlisted, the group’s expansion into capital-intensive and technology-driven sectors necessitates a reevaluation of this stance.
Historically engaged in sectors crucial for national development, such as steel, power, and infrastructure, the Tata group is now also venturing into aviation, defense, semiconductors, batteries, and electronics, which all require substantial financial backing. Singh argues that internal funding alone may no longer be adequate, making a public listing a plausible consideration.
The urgency surrounding this issue has intensified due to RBI regulations that could mandate a listing for Tata Sons if it continues to be classified as an upper-layer NBFC. Singh has reiterated that the prior decision against a listing merits reconsideration.
In addition to the listing discussion, internal conflicts regarding governance have emerged within Tata Trusts. Recently, Noel Tata directed CEO Siddharth Sharma to investigate whether Vijay Singh and Venu Srinivasan would voluntarily resign from the Bai Hirabai Trust, citing potential legal challenges surrounding the appointment of non-Zoroastrians. Following this, Srinivasan chose to step down, while Singh declined to do so.
This controversy stems from the Trust Deed’s clauses, which some interpret as limiting trusteeship to Zoroastrians and residents of specific regions, such as the Bombay Presidency or Navsari. While a previous legal assessment by former Chief Justice H J Kania indicated no doctrinal barrier against appointing non-Zoroastrians, Tata Trusts maintains that these provisions could still face legal challenges.
The situation escalated when Mehli Mistry, a former trustee of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust, contested their appointments before the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner, claiming they are non-Zoroastrians.
In September last year, trustees voted 4-3 to remove Vijay Singh from the Tata Sons board. Singh, a former defense secretary and a trusted ally of Ratan Tata, has faced significant challenges in maintaining his position.
Additionally, Mehli Mistry, another close associate of Ratan Tata, was not reappointed to the boards of the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and the Sir Ratan Tata Trust after a majority of trustees opposed his continuation. These trusts collectively hold more than 51% of Tata Sons Ltd, which is the main investment vehicle and promoter of Tata companies.
Financial Losses in Unlisted Entities
Noel Tata has raised alarms regarding the financial stability of several unlisted group companies during the latest board meeting of Tata Sons. Known for his understated demeanor, he has underscored the importance of minimizing debt and curtailing losses, reportedly making this a prerequisite for any extensions in leadership roles.
Air India, which the Tata group acquired in 2022, is projected to incur a full-year loss exceeding Rs 20,000 crore for FY26—almost double the previous year’s loss. In FY25, the airline reported a consolidated net loss of Rs 10,859 crore, which includes figures from Air India Express and other subsidiaries.
Other enterprises within the group have also faced financial challenges. Tata Play recorded a consolidated net loss of Rs 529.43 crore in FY25, reflecting a nearly 50% increase from the previous year amid dwindling revenues and fierce competition. Tata Digital reported a net loss of approximately Rs 828 crore in FY25, an improvement from Rs 1,201 crore in FY24, yet indicative of ongoing difficulties.
