Rahul Gandhi accused the BJP-led government of treating Indian businesses as its "plaything" and alleged that business leaders were afraid to speak out amid a dispute over N Chandrasekaran's reappointment as Tata Sons Executive Chairman.Rahul Gandhi’s remarks come amid a Tata Group dispute over Chandrasekaran’s reappointment, which Tata Trusts Chairman Noel Tata has challenged on procedural grounds. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday accused the BJP-led government of treating Indian businesses as its “plaything”, alleging that business leaders were afraid to speak out as a dispute over the reappointment of N Chandrasekaran as Tata Sons Executive Chairman escalated.In a post on X, Gandhi claimed that Tata was being “criminally destroyed” and questioned why business leaders had remained silent.“Tata is being criminally destroyed, and no business leader dares say a word.

How long will you stay silent? Until they own you?” Gandhi said, asserting that Indian businesses were not the BJP’s “plaything”.“We don't.

We will ensure justice for these crimes,” Gandhi added. His remarks come amid a dispute within the Tata Group over Chandrasekaran’s reappointment, with Tata Trusts Chairman Noel Tata raising objections to the process and questioning the validity of the resolution approving it.In a letter dated October 26 to Suprakash Mukhopadhyay, Company Secretary and Group Corporate Secretary of Tata Sons, Noel Tata said that the resolution was moved at a board meeting on September 17 even though the agenda circulated to directors did not specifically mention Chandrasekaran’s reappointment.

He also said the company had failed to provide him with the audio and video recordings of the meeting, its final minutes or a certified copy of the resolution, despite repeated requests.Noel Tata argued that the resolution was void because it did not comply with the relevant provisions of Tata Sons’ Articles of Association. He claimed that no Selection Committee had been constituted under Article 118 and that no recommendation from such a committee had been placed before the board.He further contended that the affirmative vote of directors appointed under Article 104B, required under Articles 118 and 121, had not been obtained.

According to his letter, the resolution was also put to a vote subject to conditions that had not been fulfilled.Noel Tata also questioned how the meeting’s agenda had been handled. He said the original agenda listed item 7 as a “Debriefing from Nomination and Remuneration Committee” and did not explicitly refer to Chandrasekaran’s reappointment.Although the agenda was subsequently revised to include discussions on a Reserve Bank of India letter and related caveat applications, it still did not specifically mention the reappointment, he said.Objecting to the company treating the resolution as final while the meeting’s records remained contested, Noel Tata described the recording as the “only neutral record” of what had transpired.

He said the company had failed to share the recordings despite two written requests made over more than three weeks.He also questioned the circulation of a certified copy of the resolution in the public domain and its reported filing with the Registrar of Companies before the minutes had been finalised.Noel Tata said that the company had certified the resolution as passed without accounting for the conditions attached to the vote, even as his objections and dissent remained unresolved.“It is unacceptable that, despite being a Director of the Company, I have not been furnished with certified true copy of the resolution,” he wrote, adding that he had been forced to rely on a version circulating in the public domain.Noel Tata has sought a series of documents and clarifications from Tata Sons within seven days. These include the meeting’s audio and video recordings, final or revised minutes, voting details, the formal notice, different versions of the agenda and documents filed with the Registrar of Companies and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.He has also asked Tata Sons to inform the Registrar in writing that the resolution’s validity is disputed by a director nominated under Article 104B and by Sir Dorabji Tata Trust.Further, he has sought that no additional steps be taken on the resolution until the record of the meeting is settled.- Ends