A Singapore court sentenced Byju Raveendran — the founder of edtech platform Byju’s — to six months in jail over alleged non-compliance with disclosure orders. Raveendran responded to this saying the ruling was “procedural.” He denied wrongdoing and said that he planned to appeal.
Bloomberg reported that the Singapore court directed Raveendran to surrender to authorities, pay legal costs of S$90,000 ($66,000) and furnish documents proving his ownership of Beeaar Investco Pte, a corporate entity that held shares in a related company.
Byju’s was once one of India’s most valuable startups valued at $22 billion. However, Raveendran has been facing investor disputes, debt litigation and operational turmoil following a sharp post-pandemic downturn.
READ: The truth does change with a headline, Byju (May 27, 2026)
The legal action in Singapore was initiated by a subsidiary of Qatar Investment Authority (QIA), which had invested in the company during a period when Byju’s was cutting jobs and restructuring operations, according to the report. Qatar Holdings was represented by law firm Drew & Napier, while Byju’s Investments was represented by Fervent Chambers in the matter.
It’s not clear whether Raveendran was in Singapore at the time of the order.
The development comes months after the Delaware Court in December 2025 reversed its earlier $1 billion judgment against Raveendran after reviewing fresh submissions filed through a motion seeking correction of a Nov. 20, 2025 ruling. The Delaware court then observed that damages had not been properly determined and ordered a fresh phase of proceedings to decide whether any damages were owed.
Raveendran’s legal team had alleged that GLAS Trust and lenders withheld or misrepresented key information during proceedings, which they claimed contributed to the collapse of the edtech business and erosion of enterprise value.
READ: Byju Raveendran told allied businessmen to flee US to avoid testifying (November 22, 2024)
Raveendran said in a statement issued after the ruling, that the settlement discussions with lenders and investors, including GLAS Trust and QIA, were already nearing conclusion and described the latest legal action as an unnecessary escalation. “The parties have also acknowledged that there has been no wrongdoing on my part or on the part of the other founders,” he said.
He said the Singapore ruling was “a procedural contempt of court order” linked to disputes over document disclosure and “not a finding of fraud, dishonesty, or wrongdoing on the merits.” Raveendran added that he had chosen “resolution over confrontation” and said he intended to challenge what he described as a “false and one-sided narrative.”