Aakash Accuses EY of Conflict of Interest, Demands Byju’s-Related Records

Aakash Educational Services (AESL) has accused EY of a conflict of interest and professional misconduct in its ongoing dispute with Byju’s.

The case focuses on governance and control issues at AESL following Byju’s failed takeover. AESL has also requested that EY disclose any documents, information or correspondence it accessed regarding AESL transactions.

In a letter dated 17 May 2025, AESL’s legal team alleged that EY operated in dual capacities, providing advisory services to both AESL and Byju’s despite knowing their complex relationship. The letter described EY’s actions as “unethical and legally untenable” and demanded that the firm cease all involvement and preserve all communication records for potential legal proceedings.

Meanwhile, CrestLaw Partners, representing the Manipal Group (a significant stakeholder in AESL), contacted EY to emphasise the firm’s role in advising the Manipal Group on critical matters, including tax and regulatory implications, accounting treatment and other AESL-related issues.

CrestLaw Partners wrote in a letter, “We would further like to point out that, as majority shareholder in AESL, our client has been apprised that there are considerable correspondences in the records of AESL which show that EY was a constant factor in both operations and advice rendered to Mr Byju Raveendran, Byju’s, AESL, Aakash Choudhry, Blackstone and our clients, the Manipal Group.”

EY’s Response & Legal Threat

In response to the allegations, EY told PTI, “We deny all claims. We take matters of client confidentiality and conflict very seriously. As a result, we are unable to provide any additional comment on this topic.”

AESL’s legal head, Sanjay Garg, claimed that despite being notified, EY continued to violate fiduciary boundaries. AESL has directed EY India to cease all involvement and preserve all communication records for potential use in legal proceedings.

Garg also asserted that institutional integrity must not be compromised, particularly for firms “entrusted with sensitive and high-stakes advisory roles.”

Garg’s letter stated, “We have sufficient material in our possession to submit before any adjudicating or regulatory authority to suggest that any involvement in the CIRP process would conflict with the independent professional functions to be performed by entities such as you.”