'Expelling Members For Marrying Outside Community Violates Article 25' : Kerala Court Dismisses Knanaya Church's Appeals

The Court of the Additional District Judge - V, Kottayam on an appeal before it from the judgment of the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam, held that endogamy within the Knanaya Catholic Community is not an essential religious practice and on this basis, the expulsion of the Knanaya Catholic member and their family unit permanently from the Church for marrying outside the community is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

In the Judgment delivered by the Additional District Judge-V, Sanu S. Panicker, while holding so, observed, 

"..I am of the view that endogamy is nothing but a marriage custom prevailing in the community, which is not an essential religious practice for limiting the membership of the Church, and as such, I am of the view that the Church would not be justified in regulating the membership of the Church on the basis of the custom of endogamy prevailing in the community". 

The Knanaya Church is a sect of Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. The Knanaya community takes distinct pride in their ancestral heritage, which they trace back to Syrian Christians who are believed to have migrated from South Mesopotamia to Kerala during the 4th century. They distinguish themselves from other Catholics on account of their unique lineage and rigorously follow endogamy, and violation of it will lead to expulsion from the community, even if the person married is a Catholic of another church.

As per the factual circumstances of the case, a suit had been instituted in 2015 by the Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithy and certain members of the community challenging the practice of expelling members of the community for marrying a Catholic of another church on the ground that the same is 'unholy', 'unconstitutional', 'unethical' and 'inhuman', before the Additional Sub Judge, Kottayam. The suit was thus instituted seeking a declaration that the practice of endogamy was unconstitutional and illegal. Directions were also sought to bring back members expelled for violating endogmay and to restrain the Kottayam diocese (which is the exclusive diocese of Knanaya Catholics) from following this practice. The Sub Court in this case held that the aforementioned practice of expelling members from the Knanaya Catholic Church for marrying outside the community is unconstitutional for being violative of right to marry under Article 21 and right to religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, and further held that the practice of compulsive endogamy in the church was in violation of right to marriage, which is a facet of right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court had added that such a practice of compulsive endogamy was violative of the Bible, Canon Laws, Particular Laws, Article of faith, Indian Constitution and International Covenants. 

It is against this judgment that the appeal had been filed before the Additional District Judge - V, Kottayam. 

Upon considering the question as to whether the custom of endogamy was a valid one, it was contended by the counsels for the appellants, Advocates P.B. Krishnan and Agi Joseph, that the said custom had been followed for centuries. The Sub-Court was unable to find merit in this contention, since no sufficient evidence to prove the same had been established by the appellants. However, in the instant case, the Court found that, 

"the custom of endogamy is being followed by the community, reasonably a very long period, without any break, and therefore, there is no justification in holding that the defendants have failed to establish the custom of endogamy". 

In this light, the Court found that the Court below had wrongly admitted an article published by a third party as evidence that the founder Thomas Knani had married a Hindu lady and had children out of wedlock as a ground to establish that the custom of endogamy had not been practiced for centuries. The Court further found that as per the Canon Law, Canon 6(2) and 1509, a custom for more than 100 years is "liable to be accepted as a valid custom even if it violates some canon principles".

Importantly, the Court observed that, 

"...endogamy is a marriage custom prevailing in the community attached to the Church, and it does not take away the right of any member of the community attached to the Church for choosing a life partner of their own choice, and therefore, the "right of marriage" "as such" is not restrained by endogamy". 

It further added that, 

"..the custom of endogamy is intended to preserve the culture and purity of the community, and as such, they have every right to preserve it under Article 29 of the Constitution of India within their community". 

To this extent, the finding of the Court below that endogamy violates Article 21 of the Constitution was overturned by the Court on stating that, 

"...the custom of endogamy is a valid custom among the community and it never violates Article 21 of the Constitution as contended by the learned counsels for the appellants and supporting respondents, even though it affects religious practices guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution". 

 It was contended by the counsels for the appellants that the practice of endogamy was 'the life and existence of the community, and without which the community and its church have no existence'. It was further contended that a child born to Knanaya parents alone could be admitted to the church for religious practice, since endogamy is an essential religious practice. It was further submitted that although the membership of a Knanya Catholic would not forfeit on ground of marriage to a non-Knanaya Catholic, the Church could not accept them and their children. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that endogamy is a marriage custom, which is neither a custom of membership nor Baptism as per Canon law, and also that the Church admits even a child born to an unwed Knanaya girl for Baptism to ensure even illegitimate children are admitted to Christian faith, thus indicating that endogamy is not an essential religious practice. It was further pointed out that once a Knanaya Catholic married from outside the diocese, they would not be admitted in the Church till that marriage continued. 

Here the Court remarked that if the church admitted even a child whose paternity was unknown at the time of baptism, it could not be said that endogamy is an essential religious practice of the Church and community as contended by the Appellants.

The Court further observed that, 

"the Church is under a legal obligation to perform a sacrament of marriage between a Knanaya Catholic and a Catholic from outside the diocese on the request of a Knanaya Catholic, and the children born to the said couple should also be admitted in the Church for their religious practices",

while adding that it was open for the child to choose religious status of either parent when eligible to do so. 

The Court further held that, 

"all the members who were driven out of the Church on ground of practice of endogamy are entitled to be re-admitted in Church as per the existing norms of the Church". 

as the said exclusion would be violative of Article 25 as well as Constitutional morality envisaged under Article 26 of the Constitution.

The Court further considered some other points that were raised before it on appeal: 

Regarding Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to Adjudicate the matter:

Although it had been contended by the Appellants that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate a matter in which Fundamental Rights under Articles 21 and 25 were involved, the Court in the instant case found that rights of worship, membership in the church, marriage, and validity of the custom of endogamy were involved herein, and found that the same were civil rights. The Court further found it difficult to accept the contention that victims of violation of Fundamental Rights would not have any remedy before the Civil Courts, and laid down that the Civil Court would have jurisdiction in the instant case to decide questions of violation of Fundamental rights as a common law remedy, unless its cognizance was explicitly or implicitly barred under Section 9 of CPC. 

The Question of Limitation:

It was contended by the Appellants that the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs to the suit who were members of the community and had relinquished their membership by marrying Catholics outside the community, had voluntarily done so in 1977 and 1988 respectively, and that even if the contention of forceful termination was established, the suit would still be barred by limitation. To this, the Court found that as per the By-law of the Church, it appears that the custom of endogamy is the yardstick for membership in the Church, which is also a pre-condition for religious service from the Church. In this light, since the very criteria for membership was still in force, it was found that the cause of action was also in force, and hence, the suit could not be said to be barred by limitation. The Court further added when the appellants alleged that there was no sufficient evidence indicating forceful removal of the respondents, that "the process of removal of membership based on endogamy may be peaceful, but whenever criteria of membership as per the by-law of the Church is in force, questions of forceful termination or peaceful removal of membership are insignificant". 

Whether the Church was exclusively carved out for the Community & Whether the Community is a Religious Denomination:

While the appellants contended that the Church was exclusively carved out for the Southeist as per the Papal Bull, with a right of endogamy and the church was required to follow the custom of the community, the respondents contended that the church was only for administrative convenience, and a right of endogamy was not given to the Southeist people. The Court found favour with the contention of the appellants on this point, and relied upon the specific writing in Papal Bull to ascertain that the Church was indeed exclusively carved out for the Community. It was further found by the Court, after perusing the history of the Knanaya Community, that as per the Papal Bull, the Southeist people were different in their culture and rituals, and the custom of endogamy was also their marriage custom followed for the past 100 years. The Community also Official recognition from State of Kerala. On these grounds the Court found that, the community attached to the church is a separate section of Christian religion having satisfied the criteria under Article 26 of the Indian Constitution, however, "it has no primacy to prescribe religious sacraments over and above the Canon law, as it does not have any independent control and existence apart from its Supreme ruler, or sovereign authority of Church religion, Pontiff". 

Advocates Francis Thomas, Kaleeswaram Raj, Thulasi K. Raj, Avaneesh V.N., Georgekutty C.A., Jojo Thomas, P. Vinodji, Sivan Madathil, P. Smithakumari, Satheesh Chandran Nair, Joseph Abraham, Manu Tom Thomas, Hilu Latheef, Arun S. Nair, Saji Koduvath, B. Ashok, N.K. Narayanan Namboothiri, Ahees S., Ananthakrishnan A. Kartha, Aneesh Lukose, Sundeep Abraham, and Johny Jose Nidhiri appeared for the various respondents. 

Case Title: The Metropolitan Archbishop, the Archeparchy of Kottayam & Anr. v. Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithy & Ors. 

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment