Madras High Court cancels FIR against bishop over discrepancy in baptism certificate

Moreover, the court said that the order of appointment of the petitioner as Bishop, issued by the Pope, reflected his name as the one mentioned in the birth certificate. “In such circumstances, it defies logic and legal reason to contend that the amendment to the baptism certificate was made with the intent to facilitate the petitioner’s consecration as bishop,” the ruling added.

Justice Vijayakumar held that no case of cheating was made out against the bishop.

The March 4 FIR was registered after a member of the Roman Catholic Church filed a complaint against the bishop whom he had been acquainted with for 17 years on the ground that his name was different in civil records and the church records.

According to the FIR, the bishop was ordained on January 13, 2024, and his name that was addressed in all the church records, including the priests’ profile, and diocesan newsletters, was different than his name that was there in his school records. This difference of names was discovered on making inquiries at the educational institutions where the bishop had pursued his studies and the parishes where he had served as Pastor.

The man has alleged in the FIR that after his elevation, the bishop had fabricated the baptism certificate and substituted the baptismal name with a name not traditionally of Christian origin. It was also alleged that the date of birth was changed from April 2, 1962, to January 20, 1963. It was further alleged in the FIR that the baptism register itself had been ‘falsified’ and a false version had been transmitted to the Vatican City.

‘Abuse of process of law’

The high court observed that the difference between the church records and the secular official records had been there since the bishop’s childhood. The order also underlined the discrepancy in the date of birth of the petitioner, but said, “Such a discrepancy in the date of birth, without any evidence of governmental service where age has material legal consequences, would not, in the ordinary course, carry any legal significance.”

According to the high court, the allegation of cheating was not made out as the order of consecration reflected the first name and “merely because the baptism certificate varies from the secular official records, the same cannot be treated as a fabricated document or be construed to establish that the petitioner has indulged in cheating.”

The high court was of the opinion that a case of cheating was not made out against the bishop and that continuing the criminal case would be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the high court set aside the FIR and consequent proceedings.

Different name

Senior advocate Xavier Arulraj appearing for the bishop submitted that the bishop’s father was an admirer of a communist leader and had accordingly named him after the leader at the time of the bishop’s baptism. The counsel, however, argued that since the name was not recognised as a name of Christian origin, an objection was raised by the church, and the bishop was consequently baptised under a different name.

The Senior counsel also urged that when the dispute was brought to the attention of the apostolic authority, a clarification letter was issued on April 27, 2026, confirming that both the names of were of the same person and the letter also stated that the Pope was aware of the discrepancy between the Indian passport and the baptism certificate, and that the bishop had been validly ordained.

Senior advocate Veera Kathiravan representing the man who had complained, argued that the name and date of birth as stated in the original baptism certificate were completely different than those in the present certificate, and that such alterations were done with the sole purpose of securing the position of bishop of Kumbakonam.

The counsel also stated that a confidential inquiry was ordinarily conducted before the consecration of any person as bishop, and to avoid any adverse findings that might come from the inquiry, the bishop altered his name by fabricating the church records.