The Madras High Court has cancelled a First Information Report and ongoing criminal proceedings against the Bishop of the Diocese of Kumbakonam, ruling that differences between a person’s church records and civil documents do not constitute forgery or cheating.
Justice R. Vijayakumar set aside the March 4 case on July 29, observing that continuing the prosecution against the religious leader would amount to an abuse of the legal process. The court determined that amending a baptism register to align with an officially issued birth certificate does not make the document fraudulent under the law.
Court Finds No Basis For Cheating
The judgment noted that a birth certificate issued to the bishop in 2003 served as the legal foundation for updating his baptismal record. The court stated that it defied logic to claim the amendment was made to facilitate his elevation, given that the papal order appointing him as bishop already reflected the name appearing on his birth certificate.
Addressing allegations regarding a discrepancy in the bishop’s date of birth, which varied between April 2, 1962, and January 20, 1963, the judge ruled that such variations hold no legal weight in the absence of government service or specific legal requirements where age carries material consequences. The court concluded that variations between secular records and baptismal certificates cannot establish an intent to deceive or commit cheating.
Origins Of The Dispute
The criminal case originated from a complaint filed by a member of the Roman Catholic Church who had known the bishop for 17 years. Following the bishop’s ordination on January 13, 2024, the complainant alleged that the bishop’s name in official church registries and diocesan newsletters differed from the name listed in his educational records.
The complainant contended that the bishop had altered his baptism certificate post-elevation, substituting his original baptismal name with a non-traditional Christian name and falsifying records sent to Vatican City. The complainant’s counsel argued before the court that these alterations were made to pass a mandatory confidential inquiry conducted prior to episcopal consecrations.
Vatican Clarification And Legal Defense
Senior counsel representing the bishop explained that the dual naming arose during the bishop’s childhood. The bishop’s father had originally named him after a communist leader, but church authorities objected because the name was not traditionally Christian, leading to his baptism under a different name.
The defense presented an April 27, 2026 clarification letter from apostolic authorities, which confirmed that both names belonged to the same individual. The letter stated that the Pope was fully aware of the variations between the bishop’s Indian passport and his baptism certificate prior to approving his valid ordination.
