By T N Ashok
The most coveted corporate chair in India is suddenly vacant in all but name. N Chandrasekaran, the first non-Tata to occupy the chairmanship of Tata Sons, has decided not to seek another term when his present tenure ends on February 20, 2027. He remains chairman for now, giving the Tata Group roughly six months to find his successor. He has also asked the board to move quickly so that the transition is orderly.
But the question of who will inherit the ₹180-billion Tata empire is turning into much more than a corporate succession exercise.
It is a question of family versus professional management, Parsi heritage versus meritocracy, continuity versus disruption—and ultimately who controls the soul of the Tata Group.
The first outsider broke the taboo; Chandrasekaran’s appointment in 2017 was itself revolutionary. A career Tata executive who had risen through Tata Consultancy Services and eventually became its chief executive, the Tamil Nadu-born technocrat was the first person outside the Tata family to become chairman of Tata Sons. He inherited a group badly shaken by the dramatic removal of Cyrus Mistry and subsequently spent nine years rebuilding the conglomerate’s financial and strategic muscle.
Under him, Tata made enormous bets on aviation, electronics, semiconductors, electric vehicles and manufacturing. The acquisition of Air India was the symbolic return of the Tata name to the airline it had founded. The group also positioned itself aggressively in India’s electronics and semiconductor ambitions.
But the second-term question became increasingly contentious. Reports indicate that disagreements between Chandrasekaran and Tata Trusts chairman Noel Tata extended beyond the question of personalities to the performance of loss-making businesses, capital allocation, governance and the future direction of Tata Sons.
Noel’s questions reportedly included why some group businesses continued to absorb capital and whether Chandrasekaran deserved another term. Eventually the stalemate became impossible to ignore. Chandrasekaran chose not to fight for a third term.
The man who now holds the cards; Noel Tata, the half-brother of the late Ratan Tata, is suddenly the most important figure in the succession drama.
He is chairman of Tata Trusts, whose trusts collectively control roughly two-thirds of Tata Sons. He is also a Tata Sons director. Reuters describes him as having emerged from the shadow of Ratan Tata to become a central power broker over the group’s succession and the long-running question of whether Tata Sons should eventually be listed.
Tata Trusts has already begun the machinery for finding Chandrasekaran’s replacement. The Sir Dorabji Tata Trust has resolved to initiate the setting up of a selection committee under Tata Sons’ Articles of Association.
The composition of that committee will matter enormously. The selection process is governed by Tata Sons’ Articles, with the Tata Trusts retaining substantial influence so long as they hold the prescribed shareholding threshold. The committee is expected to include representatives of the major trusts, a Tata Sons board representative and an independent external member.
In other words, this is not going to be an open-market CEO search. The Tata family may not own every Tata operating company, but through Tata Trusts it possesses extraordinary influence over the holding company.
TV Narendran: the frontrunner; The name appearing most consistently in current reporting is T. V. Narendran, chief executive and managing director of Tata Steel. Narendran has a formidable Tata pedigree without being a Tata.
He is an experienced industrial manager, has run one of the group’s most strategically important businesses and understands the culture of the conglomerate from inside. Most significantly, reports say he has developed a close working relationship with Noel Tata since Noel became vice-chairman of Tata Steel in 2022.
For the Trusts, Narendran offers an attractive compromise. He is not a member of the family. But neither is he an outsider who would have to learn the Tata system from scratch. He knows Tata’s industrial businesses, its board culture, its international ambitions and the peculiar balance between commercial returns and the group’s philanthropic obligations.
There is also a powerful symbolism in choosing another insider after Chandrasekaran: it would preserve continuity while allowing Noel Tata to exercise greater influence without appearing to restore direct family management.
Saurabh Agrawal: the numbers man; Another name in circulation is Saurabh Agrawal, Tata Sons’ group chief financial officer. Agrawal represents a different model.
If the next phase of Tata’s development is to be about capital discipline rather than empire-building, an experienced financial manager could be attractive. Tata has enormous commitments in aviation, electronics, semiconductors, electric vehicles and manufacturing.
The group’s next chairman may therefore need to be less of a visionary dealmaker and more of a ruthless allocator of capital.
But Agrawal lacks Narendran’s operating experience at the helm of a giant industrial company, which makes him a less obvious favourite at present.
The other insiders; The list does not stop there. Reported names include Praveer Sinha, chief executive of Tata Power; Shailesh Chandra, who heads Tata Motors’ passenger and electric-vehicle businesses; and Ramakrishnan Mukundan, chief executive of Tata Chemicals.
Each brings a different credential. Sinha knows energy and infrastructure. Shailesh Chandra understands the automobile transformation at a time when Tata Motors is simultaneously dealing with electric vehicles, passenger cars and commercial vehicles. Mukundan represents chemicals and industrial manufacturing.
But none currently appears to have the breadth of Narendran’s reported support.
Then comes the family question; The intriguing possibility is that Tata Trusts could ultimately prefer a member of the next generation of the Tata family. Noel Tata’s children—Neville, Maya and Leah—have been mentioned in succession discussions, although there is no indication that any has emerged as the clear choice.
That would represent a philosophical shift. Ratan Tata famously chose professional managers rather than installing a Tata family member after himself. Chandrasekaran continued that tradition.
Would Noel Tata reverse it? Perhaps—but putting a relatively young family member directly into the Tata Sons chair would invite questions about experience, independence and succession planning. A more plausible route could be to groom the next generation gradually, rather than immediately handing over the holding company.
Must the next chairman be a Parsi? This is perhaps the most fascinating question because the Tata Group’s identity is deeply intertwined with the Parsi community. Yet there is no requirement that the chairman of Tata Sons be a Parsi.
Indeed, Chandrasekaran’s nine-year tenure demonstrated that the Tata philosophy can survive outside the community. The real issue is whether the chairman embodies the Tata ethos: professional integrity, institutional independence, long-term thinking, philanthropy and an ability to balance the interests of shareholders with those of the wider Tata ecosystem.
A Parsi chairman would carry enormous symbolic continuity. But symbolism cannot run Air India, build semiconductor fabs or manage a global steel business.
What do shareholders want? For investors in Tata companies, the question is simpler: who can create sustainable value? Shareholders have benefited enormously from the Tata re-rating in recent years. Tata Motors, Tata Power, TCS, Tata Steel, Indian Hotels and other listed companies have become major market stories.
But investors are also watching capital allocation carefully. Air India’s continuing losses and its enormous capital requirements are a warning that the Tata Group’s expansion phase comes with a price. Agency reports indicated that Air India has sought about $1.5 billion of fresh equity from Tata and Singapore Airlines after a $2.33-billion annual loss.
That makes the next chairman’s financial discipline critical. Investors are unlikely to care whether he is a Tata, a Parsi or an outsider if returns deteriorate. They will care enormously if governance deteriorates.
The Chandrasekaran legacy: Chandrasekaran leaves behind a complicated but substantial legacy. He modernised Tata’s corporate architecture, strengthened its digital and technology orientation and drove some of the most ambitious investments in its history.
But he also leaves a group facing the consequences of those bets. The Tata Sons chair is therefore no longer simply the custodian of a venerable business house. It is the command centre of a conglomerate involved in airlines, automobiles, steel, software, hotels, power, consumer goods, defence, electronics and semiconductors.
The next chairman will inherit both the glory and the bills.
The choice is ultimately Noel Tata’s test. The Tata succession will be watched as closely for what it says about Noel Tata as about his eventual choice. Will he restore the family to the centre of the empire? Will he choose Narendran and preserve professional management? Will he surprise the market with a completely external candidate?
Or will Tata seek a middle path—a non-family professional with strong Parsi or Tata institutional connections? The safest prediction today is TV Narendran, because he combines operating experience, Tata pedigree and reported proximity to Noel Tata.
But the larger question is more consequential. Ratan Tata built a modern Tata Group around the idea that the institution was bigger than the individual. Chandrasekaran proved that the chairman did not have to be a Tata. Now Noel Tata has to decide whether that experiment continues.
The chair at Bombay House is waiting. And whoever occupies it will not merely inherit a company. He—or she—will inherit the Tata idea itself. (IPA Service)
