Tata group patriarch Noel Tata’s latest letter to the directors of Tata Sons Private Limited is more than a challenge to the validity of a board resolution. It is a demand for answers from an institution whose reputation has been built on trust, integrity and corporate governance for over a century which is now lying in the dust – thanks to the Tata rebels.

The questions he has raised from Tata Sons board deserve a clear response. Not merely because Noel Tata chairs Tata Trusts, but also because he is entrusted with preserving a legacy built over generations by his forefathers.

Tata is being criminally destroyed, and no business leader dares say a word. How long will you stay silent? Until they own you? Indian business is not Modi and Shah’s plaything. You lack courage. We don’t. We will ensure justice for these crimes. — Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) October 28, 2026

Tata is being criminally destroyed, and no business leader dares say a word.

How long will you stay silent? Until they own you?

Indian business is not Modi and Shah’s plaything. You lack courage. We don’t. We will ensure justice for these crimes.

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) October 28, 2026

In his letter dated October 26, 2026, Noel Tata challenged the validity of the September 17 Tata Sons board resolution concerning N Chandrasekaran’s reappointment as executive chairman. He questions whether the company’s Articles of Association were followed, seeks the preservation of records and raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

These are serious issues. The board must address them on their merits rather than allow the dispute to become a contest of personalities. The Board must answer why Chandrasekaran took a U-turn after deciding to quit on August 12 and why the board decided to go against the wishes of Tata Trusts.

Noel Tata’s letter identifies decisions that, he says, require an affirmative vote from Tata Trusts under Article 121 of the company’s Articles of Association. These include the continuation or re-designation of the executive chairman outside the prescribed provisions.

“Any appointment of an additional Director; any continuation or re-designation of the Executive Chairman otherwise than in accordance with Articles 118 and 121; any resolution that the Executive Chairman is not liable to retire by rotation; any increase in capital or issue or allotment of shares; any proposal to alter the Articles or to convert the Company; and any commitment to the Reserve Bank of India as to listing or a timetable for listing, each requires the affirmative vote under Article 121.”

He also requests that such matters be considered only through a clearly specified agenda item, with papers circulated at least seven days before the meeting. He refers specifically to the September 17 meeting.

The central question is whether the applicable provisions were followed when........

© The Wire