Ara Zohrabyan, Rector of the Law Academy, shared his perspective on Bishop Gevorg Saroyan’s legal case against his dismissal from the leadership of the Masis Diocese, and the related court proceedings.

He emphasized that the court did not reinstate Gevorg (Arman) Saroyan as head of the Masis Diocese, contrary to what he called “disinformation” spread by media outlets. Instead, the court instructed that conditions be provided for Saroyan to perform that role.

“This cannot be done without annulling the decree of the Catholicos, which is the core of the dispute and has not been invalidated by the court,” Zohrabyan wrote.

He highlighted the distinction between secular and ecclesiastical legal spheres. According to him, while Arman Saroyan, as a citizen, may claim rights in the secular domain, he is known within the Church as Bishop Gevorg Saroyan. No state body, whether executive or judicial, has the authority to intervene in the Church’s internal affairs, as prohibited by the Constitution and other laws.

Zohrabyan also criticized the actions of Judge Edgar Hovhannisyan of the Armavir Court of First Instance, who is also a member of the Supreme Judicial Council, claiming they have seriously harmed the Armenian Apostolic Church.

“Imagine a priest is defrocked for a serious doctrinal violation and decides to go to court. What happens if an atheist judge like Hovhannisyan hears the case and rules in favor of the priest?” Zohrabyan asked.

He argued that the judge should not have accepted the lawsuit in the first place, nor applied a provisional measure.

The plaintiff, Arman Saroyan, reportedly requested interim measures citing emotional distress. Zohrabyan quoted from the court filing: “In this case, the situation is exceptional, as the emotional suffering is directly tied to the doctrines and principles of the Armenian Church, which require continuous, lifelong spiritual service.”

Zohrabyan criticized the judge’s response, saying Hovhannisyan failed to recognize the church-related nature of the dispute and instead imposed a measure supposedly to alleviate emotional distress, namely, granting Saroyan control over the diocese’s financial resources.

He stressed that neither Saroyan nor Judge Hovhannisyan accounted for the fact that the Catholicos’s decree is still valid. “Bishop Gevorg Saroyan (Arman Saroyan) is not the leader of the Masis Diocese. Therefore, they cannot override the Catholicos’s order.”

He reiterated that the court did not reinstate Saroyan to his former position and that the decision merely mandates facilitating his functioning in that role, something impossible without invalidating the original decree.

Zohrabyan also pointed out irregularities in Judge Hovhannisyan’s handling of the case, claiming that in 50 civil cases under the judge’s oversight, none had been accepted within a single day, except this one, which was admitted and granted interim relief in 24 hours.

Furthermore, although Saroyan’s lawsuit does not cite labor law or suggest a labor dispute, the judge nonetheless demanded documentation from the Mother See as if it were a labor case, thus overstepping procedural boundaries.

“Judge Hovhannisyan seems to want to advocate for the plaintiff more than the plaintiff himself,” Zohrabyan concluded. “He forgets he must answer to both the law and to God. The rest will be decided in court.”

The court hearing is scheduled for February 6.

Bishop Gevorg Saroyan has filed a lawsuit against the Armenian Apostolic Church, contesting Catholicos Karekin II’s decision to dismiss him from leading the Masis Diocese. The court, presided over by Judge Edgar Hovhannisyan, a member of the Supreme Judicial Council, accepted the case and temporarily reinstated Saroyan’s leadership pending final judgment.