A formal multi‑level investigation has been launched into allegations that Ayodhya Deputy Commissioner (GST) Prashant Kumar Singh secured his government job using a possibly fake disability certificate, after a complaint by his elder brother, Dr Vishwajeet Singh.

The inquiry, being overseen by the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Mau District, the Health Department, the Office of the Divyangjan Ayog and other higher authorities, stems from a 2021 application for re‑examination of the certificate.

Singh’s resignation on 27 January 2026, tendered in protest against remarks made by Shankaracharya Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati about Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, has added political and administrative complexity to the case.

Dr Vishwajeet Singh has alleged that Singh’s resignation may be an attempt to avoid scrutiny and possible recovery actions related to the alleged misuse of the disability quota in government recruitment.

Brothers’ Battle Sparks Probe

The controversy escalated when Dr Vishwajeet Singh lodged a complaint accusing his younger brother, Prashant Kumar Singh, of obtaining a government position under the disability quota on the basis of a fraudulent certificate originally issued in 2009.

According to the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of Mau, Dr Sanjay Gupta, the complaint was first registered in 2021 and has since been pursued through official channels, including requests to the Director General of Health Services and communication with the Divyangjan Ayog.

Dr Gupta told reporters that Singh was summoned twice before a divisional disability medical board to verify the alleged 40 % disability, but failed to appear on both occasions, leaving the matter unresolved. The CMO stressed that only an expert medical board’s assessment can determine the authenticity of the disability condition, which is reportedly related to an eye condition that critics say is uncommon in individuals under fifty.

The CMO also rejected claims of external pressure influencing the probe, stating that the process was being conducted transparently and strictly according to rules. He said investigations are ongoing and future actions will be taken following instructions from higher authorities after the completion of procedural checks.

In parallel, Dr Vishwajeet Singh has urged that the inquiry extend to a judicial investigation, asserting that Prashant’s resignation is a strategy to circumvent further examination and possible financial recovery if the allegations prove true.

Resignation Context: Political and Administrative Backdrop

On 27 January 2026, Prashant Kumar Singh submitted his resignation as Deputy Commissioner (GST) of Ayodhya, citing his hurt and disappointment over comments attributed to Shankaracharya Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati against both the Prime Minister and the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister.

In his resignation letter, Singh described the remarks as “objectionable” and said he could not remain silent while serving under a government he felt was being insulted.

His departure came shortly after the much‑discussed resignation of Bareilly City Magistrate Alankar Agnihotri on Republic Day, who stepped down citing alleged mistreatment of disciples at the Magh Mela and his opposition to the UGC’s Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026. Agnihotri was subsequently suspended by the Uttar Pradesh government.

Reports suggest that Singh’s resignation was followed by hours of discussions among senior administrative officials at his office, though officials have refused to disclose details of those meetings. Some media outlets reported that Singh became emotional while speaking to his family after submitting his resignation, asserting that he could no longer endure the situation.

Meanwhile, political commentators and social media voices have speculated that Singh’s resignation may have motivations beyond ethical protest including claims that he may have been preparing for a political career or electoral ambitions. These claims are not substantiated by official statements, but they underscore the controversy’s evolving public narrative.

The Logical Indian’s Perspective

At its core, this controversy is not only about one individual’s career or personal choices; it speaks to wider issues of administrative accountability, public trust and transparency in governance. Public servants are entrusted with authority and the responsibility to uphold rules that protect social equity and fairness. Allegations of misusing provisions designed to support people with disabilities if proven undermine confidence in recruitment processes and weaken the integrity of public institutions.

Equally important is the principle of due process. While allegations demand thorough investigation, all parties involved are entitled to fair assessment under established protocols without prejudice or political interference. In matters where governance, faith, personal narratives and legal accountability intersect, it becomes critical to balance respect for individual dignity with the imperative of upholding public trust.