I was chatting with Ajit Ranade yesterday on something we both crossed paths on – the appointment and elimination of Cyrus Mistry. An interesting point came up:
How was Cyrus Mistry chosen to succeed Ratan Tata?
In 2010, Tata Sons constituted a five-member Selection Committee to find Ratan Tata’s successor.
The committee consisted of:
Ratan Tata
N. A. Soonawala
Shirin Bharucha
R. K. Krishna Kumar
Lord Kumar Bhattacharya
But there was a sixth name in the early stages:
Cyrus P. Mistry himself.
Mistry’s own 2016 representation states that he was placed on the Selection Committee in 2010. The committee explored several global candidates. Ratan Tata and Lord Kumar Bhattacharya subsequently approached Mistry to consider becoming a candidate. He initially declined. I will share the list of candidates who were shortlisted in a later post. The list is interesting and even more interesting is the role of Ajay Piramal, his henchman and yes man – Nitin Nohria, Nitin’s brother in law Amit Chandra. And finally … Anita George.
When the search failed to identify a suitable successor, Mistry was approached again. He accepted — after consulting his family and after Ratan Tata assured him that he would have a free hand.
At that point, contemporary reporting says Mistry withdrew from the committee and submitted himself to the selection process. The committee subsequently recommended him unanimously. (Tata Consultancy Services)
On 23 November 2011, Tata Sons announced Mistry as Deputy Chairman, with the intention that he would succeed Ratan Tata in December 2012. (Rediff)
This raises a larger corporate-governance question:
What safeguards should apply when a member of a succession committee becomes a candidate for the position? Shirin Bharucha was the key driver to move Cyrus from selector to candidate. And to be fair, I have myself done that in at least two situations. I don’t think Shirin was malafide. Nor was her aunt who pushed Shirin to do this.
The answer is not simply whether there was a conflict. The important questions are procedural:
When exactly did Mistry recuse himself?Who interviewed him after his recusal?
Who participated in the final deliberations?
Those questions don’t matter. They are irrelevant. Only government jobs are filled by tender and those tenders are more often than not rigged. Gurdeep Singh was head of coal for the Gujarat govt owned coal co. Using the tender process, he was selected and made CMD of NTPC. He was supported Adani as CMD of NTPC who bought most of Adanis coal. This is not the worst case of conflict of interest. There are far worse options.
My IITac colleague and senior Ravi Sharma often talks of “convenience” as the biggest enemy of both good and right. His argument is strong. We often choose convenience over other considerations.
The history of the Mistry appointment therefore deserves to be examined not merely as a succession story — but as a case study in institutional governance.
