TCS COO Aarthi Subramanian Assures Clients the Tata Boardroom Fight Hasn’t Rippled Into Business

When asked whether the high‑profile row inside Tata Group is rattling the company’s flagship IT arm, Aarthi Subramanian, TCS’s executive director, president and chief operating officer, simply shrugged it off. “There has been absolutely no impact on the business, and no questions from customers,” she told Business Standard, adding that she and CEO Krithivasan have been meeting clients all quarter without a single raised eyebrow about the boardroom drama.

It’s a comforting line for a company that sits at the heart of India’s tech export engine. Over the past few weeks, however, the broader Tata empire has been buzzing with news of a simmering power struggle. At the centre are two heavyweight figures: N Chandrasekaran, chairman of Tata Sons, and Noel Tata, the head of the philanthropic Tata Trusts that own a two‑thirds stake in the holding company.

The disagreement is not just a matter of personal differences. It strikes at the very architecture of ownership that makes Tata Group unique. While the Trusts hold the lion’s share of equity, they are capped at a third of the board’s composition – a formula that has sparked a debate over whether a minority of seats can truly reflect the will of a 66% shareholder.

Noel Tata, backed by fellow Trust nominee Venu Srinivasan of TVS Motor, has voiced reservations about a third term for Chandrasekaran, who stepped into the chair in 2017 after the controversial ouster of Cyrus Mistry. Srinivasan, on the other hand, has been more supportive of the incumbent, creating an odd‑looking split within the Trust’s own representation.

One of the flashpoints in the tussle is the proposed public listing of Tata Sons. Noel has been vocal about his doubts, fearing that a market‑driven move could dilute the Trusts’ influence. Srinivasan, who initially opposed the idea, has since softened his stance and now appears to be in favour of taking the holding company to the stock exchange.

The drama reached a crescendo in August when Chandrasekaran, whose term is due to end on 20 February 2027, did not formally put his name forward for re‑appointment on 12 August. The board, however, reconvened a little over a month later and re‑elected him. Four directors voted in favour; Noel Tata stood alone in opposition. The Trusts immediately branded the decision “illegal,” setting the stage for a potential courtroom showdown.

Legal heavyweights have already been drafted. The Trusts have retained senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, while Tata Sons has turned to former solicitor general Harish Salve to defend its position. Should the case go to court, it could become a landmark ruling on corporate governance in India’s largest conglomerate.

For TCS, the drama seems to be a background hum rather than a headline. Subramanian explained that the company’s client engagements continue as usual, with no one bringing up the boardroom spat. “Especially this quarter, Krithi and I have met a lot of customers, and we have had customers visiting us here. There have been no questions or concerns from anyone,” she said, smiling.

It’s worth noting that TCS, with a market cap hovering around $200 billion, operates with a degree of autonomy that insulates it from the day‑to‑day politics of its parent group. Still, the situation does remind investors and observers that even well‑established family‑run enterprises can face internal turbulence.

Historically, Tata Group has weathered similar storms. The most famous was the fallout between Ratan Tata and then‑chairman Cyrus Mistry, which culminated in a dramatic boardroom showdown in 2016. Back then, senior executives like Russi Mody and Ajit Kerkar also found themselves in the crossfire. The current episode, while less publicised, could still reshape how the holding company makes strategic decisions – especially if a listing proceeds.

In the meantime, the message from TCS leadership is clear: business as usual. Clients are focused on delivery, digital transformation, and value creation, not on who sits where in the boardroom. As long as that remains the case, the ripple effect of the Tata tussle is likely to stay just that – a ripple, not a wave.