A century-old trust deed is now at the center of a fresh fight between two of the Tata world's most familiar names.
Mehli Mistry has formally challenged Noel N. Tata's eligibility to continue as trustee, and potentially serve as reporting trustee, of the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution. The dispute is playing out before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai Region, in Change Report No. 678 of 2026, filed as of November 5, 2026.
Financial Independence Means Something Different at Every Stage of Life
Mistry's Rejoinder Raises Citizenship And Residency Questions
#WATCH | TATA TRUSTS ROW | Mehli Mistry Challenges Removal, Questions Noel Tata’s Eligibility Mehli Mistry has filed a rejoinder before the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner, challenging the legality of his removal from the Bai Hirabai Trust and raising questions over trustee eligibility, trust deed provisions and Noel Tata’s citizenship. The next hearing in the SDTT and Bai Hirabai Trust matters is scheduled for December 3. Anurag explains the latest developments. @anujosh_aj #TataTrusts #MehliMistry #NoelTata #TataGroup #ETNOW
— ET NOW (@ETNOWlive) November 5, 2026
Mistry filed a rejoinder pushing back against the Bai Hirabai trust's reply dated October 14, 2026. That reply was affirmed by Noel Tata, who is named in the case as the proposed reporting trustee. In his rejoinder, Mistry zeroes in on Clauses 6 and 18 of the trust deed dated December 7, 1923, arguing these provisions require trustees to be Parsi persons professing the Zoroastrian faith and to meet strict residency conditions tied to Mumbai, Navsari, or the old Bombay Presidency.
According to reports, Mistry's filing claims Noel Tata is an Irish citizen and holds a UAE Golden Visa, and it questions whether he is a tax resident of the United Arab Emirates. The filing reportedly goes further, asking Noel Tata to explain whether he once held a Swiss passport along with an Indian one, when his citizenship changed, why he chose Irish citizenship, and whether reports about his mother's alleged Swiss citizenship carry any weight in the matter.
Mistry has not stopped at Noel Tata alone. He has asked the Charity Commissioner to order eligibility affidavits from other trustees too, with names like Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh also appearing in coverage of the filing. The demand, in essence, is simple: prove you qualify under the deed before taking on the role.
Micron Stock Sinks as Election Results Spark Fear of Data-Center Slowdown
Bai Hirabai Trust Eligibility Clauses Sit At The Heart Of The Fight
The Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution traces its deed back to December 7, 1923, and that document's language about Parsi Zoroastrian identity and historic geography is now doing a lot of heavy lifting in this legal battle. Mistry's reported submission states that the Deputy Charity Commissioner shall ensure the reporting trustee proposed to be substituted shall be a qualified trustee as contemplated in Clauses 6 and 18 of the trust deed, which among other things states that a trustee shall be a Parsi professing the Zoroastrian religion.
Mistry's argument is procedural at its core. Before Noel Tata can be substituted or recognized as reporting trustee, Mistry wants the Commissioner to confirm he actually meets those decades-old qualifications. This issue surfaced after Vijay Singh ceased to be a trustee earlier in 2026, which prompted Bai Hirabai to file a substitution application naming Noel Tata as reporting trustee in proceedings tied to Mistry's broader complaints about the trust's affairs.
The Tata Trusts side has pushed back hard. Their position, as reported, is that Mistry has no real standing, or locus standi, to challenge how the trusts function, and that the 1923 deed clauses he leans on must be read together with the original will and codicil governing the trust, not treated as standalone rules that override everything else.
A Wider Governance Battle Over Tata Trusts Leadership
This fight over Bai Hirabai eligibility doesn't exist in isolation. It's one piece of a much bigger governance clash. Mistry is contesting his own removal as trustee from multiple Tata-linked charitable bodies, including the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and the Bai Hirabai institution, a removal reports trace back to October 23, 2025. That earlier exit appears to be the root cause fueling his current objections.
Reports from October 16, 2026 captured Mistry's submissions on trustee qualifications taking shape, with the claim that trustees must be Parsi and must profess Zoroastrianism already central to his argument at that stage. By November 5 and 6, 2026, the dispute had widened into public view, with multiple outlets reporting Mistry's demand for a sworn affidavit from Noel Tata covering citizenship, residency, and tax status.
Tata Trusts has rejected the allegations outright, framing Mistry's challenge as an attempt to interfere with institutions he no longer has authority over. No independent market reaction or regulatory penalty has been reported in connection with this dispute so far. Its weight is legal and reputational, not financial, though Tata Trusts' influence over the larger Tata Group means any prolonged uncertainty at the top draws attention well beyond charity law circles.
What Comes Next For Noel Tata's Trustee Status
No final ruling on Noel Tata's eligibility has been issued. The matter remains pending before the Deputy Charity Commissioner under Change Report No. 678 of 2026, and the next step will likely be a formal review of Bai Hirabai's substitution application alongside Mistry's demand for sworn affidavits.
The Commissioner will have to wrestle with a tricky legal question: does a 1923 deed's religious and residency language still independently control trustee eligibility today, or must it be interpreted alongside the original will and codicil, as Tata Trusts argues? Whatever the answer, it could reshape how historic, community-specific trust conditions are applied across other Tata charitable institutions, not just Bai Hirabai, and it will likely feed directly into the parallel dispute over Mistry's own removal from the trusts.
