English
English
English
Rahul Gandhi targets Modi and Shah amid Tata Sons leadership dispute (Img: Dynamite News)
New Delhi: Congress leader and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday attacked Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah over the escalating dispute at Tata Sons, accusing them of treating Indian businesses as their “plaything”. He also questioned why prominent corporate leaders had remained silent amid the leadership tussle at the holding company of the Tata Group.
In a strongly worded post on X, Gandhi alleged that the conglomerate was being “criminally destroyed” and challenged business leaders to speak out against what he described as wrongdoing.
“Tata is being criminally destroyed, and no business leader dares say a word," Gandhi wrote. “How long will you stay silent? Until they own you?" He added: “Indian business is not Modi and Shah’s plaything. You lack courage. We don’t. We will ensure justice for these crimes."
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
The controversy centres on the reappointment of N Chandrasekaran as executive chairman of Tata Sons for another five-year term. The company’s board approved the decision on September 17, ahead of the end of his current tenure in February 2027.
However, Tata Trusts Chairman Noel Tata opposed the move. The charitable trusts collectively hold approximately 66% of Tata Sons, giving them a significant stake in the company’s ownership and governance.
Tata Trusts has argued that Chandrasekaran had informed the company on August 12 that he did not intend to seek another term. The trusts subsequently accepted his position and called for a selection committee to identify a successor.
The situation changed after the Tata Sons board asked Chandrasekaran to reconsider. The board then approved his reappointment, with four directors voting in favour and Noel Tata voting against it.
In a letter dated October 26 to Tata Sons Company Secretary Suprakash Mukhopadhyay, Noel renewed his objections to the decision, questioning the procedures followed at the September 17 meeting.
He argued that the agenda circulated to directors did not explicitly mention Chandrasekaran’s reappointment. He also alleged that a selection committee had not been constituted as required under Article 118 of the company’s Articles of Association and that the necessary affirmative votes from directors appointed under Article 104B had not been secured.
Also Read: Jio Platforms Enters Stock Market With a Bang; Investors Eye Long-Term Wealth Creation
Noel further questioned why the resolution had been treated as final and filed with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs before the meeting minutes were finalised. He sought the meeting’s audio and video recordings, final minutes, voting details and other documents to establish how the decision was reached.
Tata Sons has defended the board’s decision, citing legal opinions that support its interpretation of the applicable voting rules. The validity of the resolution remains a central point of disagreement.
The dispute extends beyond Chandrasekaran’s tenure to the future ownership structure of Tata Sons, particularly whether the company should remain privately held or pursue a stock market listing.
The Reserve Bank of India’s regulatory framework for upper-layer non-banking financial companies has brought additional pressure on the issue. Tata Sons faces listing-related regulatory considerations, while Noel Tata has opposed a public listing, arguing that the existing ownership structure is important to preserving the group’s institutional and charitable character.
The board’s consideration of a potential listing has consequently become another source of disagreement between Tata Sons and Tata Trusts.
The dispute carries wider implications because Tata Sons sits at the top of one of India’s largest business groups, with interests spanning information technology, automobiles, steel, aviation and other sectors.
Leadership and ownership decisions at the holding company can have consequences across the conglomerate. Gandhi’s intervention has added a political dimension to the internal corporate disagreement, questioning whether business leaders feel free to speak openly about developments involving one of the country’s most prominent industrial groups.
His remarks also place the spotlight on the relationship between the government and corporate India, although his allegations against Modi and Shah remain political claims rather than established findings of wrongdoing.
