In a significant escalation of a legal dispute, Mehli Mistry has filed a detailed rejoinder before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai Region. The filing challenges his alleged removal from the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsaji Charitable Institution, disputing the reply submitted by the Trust in Change Report No. 678 of 2026.
Mistry's rejoinder raises several critical questions regarding the legality of the removal process, the eligibility of current trustees, and the interpretation of the Trust Deed. He asserts that the governing provisions have been selectively applied, particularly concerning citizenship and residency requirements.
Questions Over Trustee Citizenship and Faith
A central point of contention is the eligibility of Reporting Trustee Noel N. Tata. Mistry highlighted that Noel Tata is an Irish citizen holding a UAE Golden Visa and questioned his fiscal residency status. The rejoinder demands an affidavit from Noel Tata clarifying his citizenship history, including any past Swiss passport holdings and the reasons for his choice of Irish citizenship. Mistry contends that foreign citizenship and overseas fiscal residency cannot be selectively applied against one trustee while ignored in another.
The legal challenge further targets Clauses 6 and 18 of the registered Trust Deed, which mandate adherence to the Parsi Zoroastrian faith and specific residency requirements. Mistry questioned whether trustees, including Noel N. Tata, Venu Srinivasan, and Vijay Singh, meet these criteria, specifically asserting that Noel Tata does not practice the Zoroastrian faith. Mistry has stated his readiness to file his own eligibility affidavit.
Disputed Term Limits and Resolution Validity
Mistry also challenged the introduction of a three-year tenure limit for trustees, arguing that neither the original Will (dated March 20, 1913) nor the Trust Deed (dated December 7, 1923) prescribes such a term. He pointed out that Clause 23 of the Trust Deed does not list tenure expiration as a ground for a vacancy, suggesting that a three-year limit could not be imposed via an administrative circular.
Furthermore, Mistry emphasized a joint resolution passed on October 17, 2024, by the trustees of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and Sir Ratan Tata Trust, which agreed to reappointments without tenure limits. He alleges this resolution was selectively implemented to benefit Noel Tata while denying him equal treatment.
The validity of Circular Resolution No. 671, dated October 23, 2025 – the foundation of the Change Report concerning his removal – was directly challenged by Mistry. He noted that Noel Tata, Venu Srinivasan, and Vijay Singh did not approve it, and Jimmy N. Tata did not respond. Mistry argues that excluding votes from legally disqualified trustees would alter the outcome, questioning if his cessation ever validly occurred.
Locus Standi and Governance Concerns
Pushing back against objections to his standing in the case, Mistry maintains that as his name remains on the Register of Public Trusts and the proceedings directly target his position, natural justice dictates he be heard. He also dismissed the Trust’s reliance on a March 31, 2000, legal opinion by former Chief Justice M.H. Kania, stating that a private opinion cannot override a registered Trust Deed, while requesting a legible copy and original instructions supplied to Justice Kania.
Additionally, Mistry raised governance and fiduciary concerns regarding commissions and personal financial benefits allegedly received by certain trustees acting as nominated company directors. He maintains that such funds should be properly accounted for within the Trust’s charitable framework.
Mistry Seeks Comprehensive Review
Before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Mistry has sought directions requiring all past and present Reporting Trustees to file affidavits confirming their eligibility and adherence to the Parsi Zoroastrian faith. He also requested an examination of the validity of Circular Resolution No. 671 and the total rejection of Change Report No. 678 of 2026.