In the corridors of Bombay House — the Tata empire’s headquarters in Mumbai’s Fort area, where tradition and legacy have long safeguarded one of India’s most revered conglomerates — fresh tension is clearly building up.The Tata Group — long a byword for integrity, nation-building and corporate responsibility — is now grappling with sharp differences of opinion among the trustees of Tata Trusts, the principal shareholder of Tata Sons, the $180-billion group’s holding company. In addition to revealing internal differences within the conglomerate, the unrest has prompted questions about how the group will navigate its path in the coming years.Is the Tata Trusts divided over legacy or reform?The Tata Trusts, which together own 66 per cent of Tata Sons, are now locked in a bitter power struggle, which could have an implosive impact.At the heart of the rift are disagreements over board appointments, access to sensitive information and the long-delayed listing of Tata Sons. What began as muted dissonance within the Trusts has now hardened into two factions, each convinced it is defending the “true spirit” of the Tata legacy.One faction, led by Tata Trusts Chairman Noel Tata and trustees Venu Srinivasan of the TVS Group and former Defence Secretary Vijay Singh, represents the custodians of continuity, advocating patience, due process and gradual reform. To them, the famous Tata model — methodical, discreet and deeply institutional — must be preserved, not tampered with in the name of modernity or transparency.Story continues below this adOpposing them is an assertive group led by Ratan Tata’s close friend and M Pallonji group Director Mehli Mistry, former Citibank CEO Pramit Jhaveri, Jehangir Hospital Chairman Jehangir H.C. Jehangir and senior counsel Darius Khambata. This group argues that the Trusts have grown opaque and top-heavy, and that governance frameworks must evolve to reflect contemporary standards of accountability.Noel Tata and Venu Srinivasan are also on the board of Tata Sons. Vijay Singh, too, was on the board, and the Tata Sons website still lists him as a director, but he resigned from the board recently after his reappointment was blocked by the Mehli Mistry camp, it is learnt. There are also indications that the Mehli Mistry camp blocked three candidates that Noel Tata proposed to fill the vacant positions on the Tata Sons board, while Mistry’s own appointment to the conglomerate’s board was vetoed by Noel Tata and Srinivasan.Mehli Mistry, Noel Tata, Srinivasan, and Vijay Singh are members of the Executive Committee (EC) constituted which is responsible for the overall functioning and superintendence of the Tata Trusts. Mehli Mistry, who is the first cousin of late Cyrus Mistry, was one of the contenders for the Tata Trusts Chairman’s post after the demise of Ratan Tata. Noel Tata’s son Neville and daughters Leah and Maya are trustees on some of the Tata Trusts.The immediate flashpoint came when the bloc led by Mehli Mistry opposed the reappointment of Vijay Singh – a confidant of the Noel Tata faction who was brought in as a trustee in 2018 by Ratan Tata — as nominee director. What followed was an unprecedented 3-4 split inside the Trusts, a scenario unthinkable in the meticulously managed Tata universe.Story continues below this adThe market capitalisation of Tata group companies has fallen by roughly $93 billion in the past year, according to rough calculations, underscoring the broader anxiety that accompanies this internal discord.Responding to queries from The Indian Express, a spokesperson of Tata Trusts said, “At this stage, Tata Trusts does not have any further response to share. We truly appreciate your understanding.” Tata Sons did not respond to queries from The Indian Express. Emails to Vijay Singh and Mehli Mistry also did not elicit any response.Will the listing dilemma put the SP group’s stake in play?Another key issue under contention is the listing of Tata Sons, the holding company of the Tata group. Tata Sons, which sits atop the conglomerate’s vast industrial, technology and financial empire, faces a regulatory deadline from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). As an “upper-layer” non-banking financial company (NBFC), it is required to list its shares within a prescribed time frame — a deadline that has already passed. However, Tata Sons has applied to the RBI for deregistration as an NBFC, a move designed to avoid mandatory listing. The argument is that the conglomerate is not in the lending business per se and should not be bound by financial-sector norms.But the Shapoorji Pallonji (SP) Group, which holds 18.37 per cent in Tata Sons and is the largest shareholder outside of the Tata Trusts, wants the company to list. For the SP Group, struggling under debt and liquidity constraints, a listing would unlock substantial value. Thus, the listing debate has turned into not just a question of governance, but a clash of financial imperatives and survival instincts.Story continues below this adIncidentally, Noel Tata’s wife, Aloo, is the sister of the late Cyrus Mistry, who was removed from the chairmanship of Tata Sons in October 2016. The tenure of Mistry at the helm and his removal had triggered a public slugfest, something that the group would have never wanted a re-run of, insiders told The Indian Express.Tata watchers say the markets’ concern is straightforward: prolonged infighting within Tata Trusts could paralyse decision-making at Tata Sons just when clarity and unity are most needed. With 29 publicly listed Tata firms collectively accounting for over $328 billion in market capitalisation and $180 billion in revenue, a governance freeze at the top could ripple across the markets and even the broader economy.Can Chandrasekaran maintain his balancing act amid the storm?Caught in the eye of this storm is N Chandrasekaran, Chairman of Tata Sons. A technocrat known for his composure and results-oriented leadership, Chandrasekaran has so far managed to retain the confidence of both camps. Since his appointment in 2017, he has steered the group through multiple challenges — from the complex Air India acquisition to the ambitious electric mobility transition in Tata Motors — while staying largely above factional politics. Yet, the divisions within the Trusts threaten to undercut the delicate equilibrium that has enabled him to function effectively.His recent five-year extension as Chairman was backed by the trustees, but that endorsement now carries different meanings for different camps. Each faction views his leadership through its own lens — one seeing him as a stabilising force for tradition, the other as a symbol of modernisation. For Chandrasekaran, the tightrope is growing thinner by the day.Story continues below this adFor insiders who recall the bitter 2016 ouster of Cyrus Mistry as Tata Sons chairman and the years of litigation that followed, the current tensions feel uncomfortably familiar. Then too, the Trusts’ influence and decision-making processes came under scrutiny. But what makes this episode distinct is that the discord now lies within the Trusts themselves, not between the Trusts and Tata Sons.Soul of the Tata model: Can trusteeship endure?In the past, the Tata name has survived crises because the house, though occasionally divided, always found its way back to a moral consensus. Ratan Tata’s quiet but resolute stewardship through those storms underscored that principle. But today, his absence looms large. The trustees, many of whom owe their positions to his confidence, now face the challenge of steering the ship without the moral compass he once provided. The question is whether the century-old Tata model of trusteeship — based on ethics, restraint, and a near-sacred sense of duty — can endure in an era demanding transparency, speed, modern corporate accountability and governance.For the markets and regulators, this is not just about one corporate house. The Tata Group’s reach from steel-to-salt, software-to-aviation, makes it a systemic institution. Any instability at the top raises legitimate concerns about the continuity of investments, employment, and industrial confidence.Officials involved in the mediation say their role will remain facilitative, not intrusive. Yet the very need for such involvement underscores the seriousness of the divisions within the Tata fold. The government and the markets view the Tatas as a national institution whose stability is crucial to investor trust and the broader economy, and believes internal deadlocks that spill over into markets are a matter of national concern.Story continues below this adUltimately, the battle inside Tata Trusts is about more than appointments or regulations: it is about identity. Can the Tata model of moral capitalism reinvent itself without losing its soul? Or will the very ideals that made the Tatas India’s most trusted brand become the fault lines that divide it?For now, the group remains steady on the surface. Its businesses are thriving, its balance sheets are healthy and its reputation among the most trusted in Asia endures. Yet beneath that calm exterior, the tremors are unmistakable. The question is not whether the house of Tata will survive, but what shape it will take when the dust settles.