On September 17, 2026, the six‑member board of Tata Sons voted 4‑1 to grant N. Chandrasekaran a third five‑year term as executive chairman; Chandrasekaran voluntarily abstained from the vote.
The meeting was chaired by independent director Harish Manwani, who, after the two directors nominated by the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and the Sir Ratan Tata Trust split their votes, used a casting vote to break the deadlock in favour of the extension.
The Tata Trusts, owners of about 66% of the group, contend that Article 121 of the company’s Articles of Association requires a majority of the two Trust‑nominated directors – currently Noel Tata and Venu Srinivasan – for any board resolution, and that a casting vote by an independent director cannot substitute for their joint approval.
Tata Sons’ legal advisers, senior advocate Sudipto Sarkar and former Supreme Court judge B.N. Srikrishna, argue that the chairman’s casting vote can resolve a tie both among the board as a whole and among the Trust nominees, interpreting Article 121’s language as permitting the chair to break deadlocks.
The issue revives arguments from the 2019 Cyrus Mistry litigation, where the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and the Supreme Court affirmed that the affirmative vote of the Trust nominees is indispensable, although the courts did not decide whether a casting vote could replace that requirement.
The Trusts said they are weighing legal action but would prefer a mutual settlement to avoid a protracted dispute that could create uncertainty about the leadership of the Tata group.