It is one of the few canonizations of Pope Francis that appear to be reliable.

You know what they say about the blind squirrel, or the broken clock.

Not to mention that the motivations of Francis in choosing Devasahayam Pillai for canonization likely fall into the category of "diversity" and "inclusion", i.e. for political reasons, rather than for reasons of the faith.

What's at issue with the canonizations isn't the accidental of whether he "happened" to get one or another one right, but about the fact that ordinarily canonizations are an a priori guarantee that he got it right.  And if he doesn't have that authority, i.e. is in fact an Antipope, it's relatively meaningless, and it's just a question of the objective fact of the individual's holiness.  Conciliars got quite a few of them "right", but that still doesn't mean that the ones they got "right" were legitimate canonizations while the ones they got wrong were not.  It's an all or nothing proposition.  We're not supposed to be engaging in saint-sifting.

Literally who?

Never heard of him before this thread.

I had to look him up.  Seems like a legit martyr.