Few corporate names carry as much prestige as Tata. Founded in 1868 by Jamsetji Tata, the group is today often described as India’s largest business conglomerate and has a rare distinction: the holding company, Tata Sons, is about two-thirds owned by the Tata Trusts, a group of philanthropic foundations. It is this structure, admired for generations, that is now at the center of an open conflict.
A dispute involving several parties
In September 2022, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) classified Tata Sons in the top tier of non-bank financial institutions, a classification that requires the company to go public within three years. In 2024, Tata Sons requested to be removed from the category that subjected it to that rule. The deadline passed in September 2025, with the company still not listed on the stock exchange and no decision from the regulator. On September 11, 2026, The RBI denied the request. The decision keeps Tata Sons subject to the regulatory framework applicable to top-tier NBFCs and reopens—or strengthens—the possibility of an initial public offering, although the regulator's letter does not expressly state that this is the only way.
Along the way, the shareholders themselves became divided. The Tata Trusts, which oppose the IPO, were embroiled in an internal dispute in 2025 over appointments to the Tata Sons board. In October of that year, the top officials of the Trusts and the holding company were received by Interior Minister Amit Shah and Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman at a meeting that, according to the Indian press, focused on transparency in governance. The Shapoorji Pallonji Group, the second-largest shareholder with approximately 18%, supports the IPO.
On September 17, 2026, The Tata Sons board approved, by a vote of four to one, the reappointment of N. Chandrasekaran, who has served as chairman since 2017, for a new five-year term, and, according to media reports, approved preparatory steps for a potential initial public offering. The dissenting vote came from Noel Tata, who chairs the Tata Trusts, which consider the resolution legally invalid and are considering taking the matter to court.
This is not the group’s first governance crisis. In 2016, the removal of Cyrus Mistry as chairman sparked a legal battle that did not end until 2021, when the Indian Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons.
When a reputation increases visibility
One would expect reputational capital of this magnitude to act as a buffer. But this case suggests the opposite. The greater the reputation, the higher the expectation that governance will live up to it, and the more attention paid to every deviation. A dispute over the interpretation of the bylaws—which in another company would be handled behind closed doors by lawyers—becomes a national issue here, closely monitored by the government, the regulator, and the press.
What This Case Teaches Communicators
The first lesson is that governance also communicates. The rules that define who makes decisions—and how—allow investors, partners, and employees to trust an organization without knowing who runs it. This is the structural approach we discussed in the This Month's #PRExpert. When these rules are publicly challenged, trust once again depends on people and history, and becomes more fragile.
The second is that a structure with multiple centers of power tends to produce multiple narratives. Statements that characterize a decision as illegal and information attributed to sources on each side create competing versions of the same facts, and each stakeholder ends up choosing the one that seems most credible to him.
The third point is of direct interest to Portuguese companies, many of which are family-owned or organized as holding companies and foundations. Succession, decision-making rights, and shareholder agreements should be clearly defined and explained before they are needed. Rules agreed upon in calm times are much easier to communicate than rules that must be interpreted in the midst of a dispute.
As of the time this article was written, the outcome remains uncertain. The lesson is already clear: a historic reputation raises the bar for governance, and governance is now one of the first things that the stakeholders They want to be able to verify it.