Excommunicating Knanaya Catholics who marry outside community unconstitutional: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has ruled that the practice of insisting that all Knanaya Catholic Christians can only marry within the community, and excommunicating them from parish membership if they marry non-Knananites, is unconstitutional [The Metropolitan Archbishop, The Archeparchy of Kottayam & anr v Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithi].

Justice Easwaran S found that such forced endogamy was not an essential religious practice within the Knanaya community to exempt it from judicial scrutiny or Constitutional norms.

"The defendants (church leadership/ appellants in the proceedings before the High Court) have failed to establish that ‘Endogamy’ is followed as a custom. Consequently, the plea that endogamy is an essential religious practice must also fail ... The appellants have conspicuously failed to establish that the practice of endogamy attains the character of an essential religious tenet, or that it confers upon them, any enforceable authority to regulate the personal choices of members through coercive or non-coercive expulsion or excommunication," the Court observed.

The Court held that members of the Knanaya Catholic community cannot be denied church membership or related rights merely for marrying a Catholic person belonging to a different diocese.

"The autonomy of the individual in this regard is absolute and admits of no ecclesiastical encroachment. This Court is further constrained to observe that the invocation of religious autonomy cannot be transmuted into a licence to infringe constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, leading up to the excommunication of an individual," the Court observed.

Even non-Knanaya women who marry Knanaya men, and their children, can seek membership, the Court added.

"The spouse who marries a Knanaya will take in her husband’s rites and that children who are born to them can aspire for membership in the 1st defendant (Archeparchy of Kottayam) especially since failure to practice endogamy cannot deprive an individual his rights," the March 23 ruling said.

The Judge also cited a verse from the Bible to emphasise that Christianity does not favour endogamy.

"(The Court) wishes to remind itself that the teachings of Christ, the divine law - the Bible, and the provisions of the canon law do not support the practice of endogamy. Bible (Galatians – 3: 28) proclaims that ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus,’" Justice Easwaran noted.

The Court further referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in S Rajagopal v. CM Armugam, in which the top court had observed that Christianity does not recognise caste-like classifications. All Christians are to be treated as equal and there is no distinction between one Christian and another, the top court had held.

"The tenets of Christianity militate against persons professing Christian faith being divided or discriminated based on such classification as caste system," the judge observed further, while recounting the S Rajagopalan ruling.

The High Court proceeded to dismiss a batch of appeals challenging civil court rulings that had declared compulsive endogamy among Knanaya Catholics to be unlawful and restrained the Archeparchy of Kottayam from expelling Knanaya members who married outside the community.

The Knanaya community is a group of Christians in Kerala, who believe that they were descended from the 72 families whose roots came from Jewish-Christian migrants from Southern Mesopotamia. They are fiercely endogamous and are expected to refrain from marrying outside of their community. 

However, a civil suit was eventually filed challenging such compulsive endogamous practices. The suit was filed by the Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithy and some individuals who feared exclusion from the Archeparchy of Kottayam for marrying outside the Knanaya community.

A civil court ruled in their favour in 2021. The said ruling was also upheld by an appellate court in Kottayam. These rulings were then challenged before the High Court by the church authorities.

The High Court found that there was no evidence establishing endogamy as a binding rule, as neither the Knanaya community outside the Kottayam diocese followed such a practice nor was it consistently enforced within the Kottayam diocese.

The Court observed that endogamy was a social practise which had not attained the status of a legally enforceable custom.

It also rejected the church authorities' argument that a Papal Bull issued in 1911, establishing the Kottayam diocese, had recognised the community's endogamous character.

The Court found that this administrative document only created a separate jurisdiction for the church. It did not lay down rules governing marriage, nor for termination or expulsion of members not following endogamy.

The Court further rejected arguments that the Knanaya community's practice of endogamy was protected under Articles 25 (freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion) and 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), as an essential legal practice.

The Court added that the Knanaya community did not constitute as a separate religious denomination as they shared the same faith and principles followed by other Catholic churches.

The Court went on to hold that forcing any individual to marry within their community to avoid expulsion from the diocese effectively curtailed their fundamental rights to choose a life partner and to freely practising their religion.

"Once it is held that there is no valid custom of endogamy and that the defendants have no right to expel a member who refuses to follow endogamy, any act of excommunication from the community amounts to violation of Article 21 read with Article 25 of the Constitution of India," the Court ruled.

Senior counsel Renjith Thampan assisted by advocate Pooja Sunil and Shyam Padman assisted by advocate Laya Mary Joseph represented the Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithy and various individuals.

Senior counsel PB Krishnan and T Krishnanunni assisted by Jacob E Simon, senior counsel S Sreekumar assisted by P Martin Jose, appeared for the church leadership (defendants before the civil court and appellants before the High Court).

[Read Judgment]