Christ, Divine Law & The Bible Do Not Support Endogamy; No Bar On Knanaya Marrying Non-Knanaya Catholic: Kerala High Court

The Court observed that the insistence that members must “voluntarily” leave the Church to marry outside the community, coupled with denial of necessary permissions for marriage, amounts to coercion and undue influence, thereby constituting a continuing wrong. The Court held that forcing a member to leave the Church for marrying outside the community violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees dignity and personal liberty, read with Article 25, which protects freedom of religion. It said that the choice of marriage cannot be made conditional upon surrendering religious identity or membership.

Justice Easwaran S. observed, “…recognition by a community, insofar as the marriage is concerned, is a personal right of the spouses, as they are entitled to live after marriage openly to the knowledge of the community and the members of the community. The rule of reservation is entirely different from the context of a claim based on a civil right. There is no denial of the fact that a spouse is taken into the family of her husband after her marriage and that she cannot remain in a suspended animation and continue to hold the status of her community before her marriage. However, when a claim of reservation is raised, the matter should be viewed differently, and that is precisely the reason why the Apex Court affirmed the views of the Full Bench of this Court. However, it is beyond cavil that when it comes to personal right, the principles laid down in Valsamma Paul (supra) cannot have any application. As far as the baptism of their children is concerned, once this Court has concluded that there is no legal bar for a Knanaya to marry a non Knanaya catholic, all consequences follow”.

“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 principle that the fundamental rights are enforceable even in the interstices of non-state action stands firmly affirmed in the present case, thereby denuding the appellants of any justificatory defence. The findings that the appellants are disentitled from receiving solemnization of marriage or administration of sacraments on the basis of non-adherence to endogamy are unassailable, being firmly anchored in constitutional morality, individual autonomy, and the overarching mandate of equality…”, it noted further.

P.B. Krishnan, Senior Counsel appeared for the petitioner and Renjith Thampan, T.K. Krishnanunni, Sumathy Dandapani, Senior Counsels appeared for the respondents.

In the matter, a civil suit was filed by members of the Knanaya Catholic community challenging practices within the Archeparchy of Kottayam that allegedly insisted on endogamy (marriage within the Knanaya community), denied No Objection Certificates (NOCs) for marriage with non-Knanaya Catholics unless membership was relinquished, and effectively compelled individuals to leave the Church upon inter-community marriage.

The plaintiffs contended that such practices violated their fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India, arguing that membership in the Church is acquired by birth and cannot be taken away for exercising personal choice in marriage. The Church authorities, on the other hand, defended the practice as part of a long-standing community tradition, asserting protection under Articles 25 and 26 relating to religious freedom and denominational autonomy.

The Court undertook an extensive examination of constitutional principles, canon law, and community practices, ultimately rejecting the defence of endogamy.

“Coming to the applicability of Section 41(g), it must be noted that there is a clear admission in para 42 of the written statement that the defendants 1 and 2 are not forcefully terminating the membership of the members of church who marry non Knanaya spouses. Further, going by Ext.B19 letter dated 15-11-2017 the practice of endogamy is not accepted but only a de facto toleration alone is permitted. Thus, it cannot be said that plaintiffs 2 and 3 have acquiesced their rights. Therefore, this court finds the suit is not hit by the provisions of Section 4 and 41(g) of the Specific relief Act 1963”, it further noted.

“Defendants 1 and 2, on their own, cannot claim any right exclusively in the strength of Article 26(b) and Article 29 of the Constitution of India, since the defendants 1 and 2 failed to establish a) the custom of endogamy & b) that the practice of endogamy is an essential religious practice. Since the insistence to practice endogamy and failure to follow the same results in excommunication, such an act falls short of constitutional morality, and hence the defendants 1 and 2 cannot claim the benefit of Article 26(b) of the Constitution of India and hence the application of Article 29 does not arise for consideration”.

The Court further clarified that membership in the Church is acquired by birth and not by contractual byelaws, and that subsequent rules cannot impose conditions curtailing such membership. Any such attempt, the Court held, would be void if it infringes fundamental rights.

“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 Bench noted.

Rejecting jurisdictional objections, the Court held that civil courts are competent to adjudicate disputes involving violations of fundamental rights by non-State actors and that excommunication is subject to judicial review, particularly when it entails civil consequences.

“…this Court concludes that the contention of the appellants that only if the Parliament empowers the court other than the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights, an action for enforcement can be maintained, cannot be sustained. A horizontal action is perfectly maintainable if the infringement of fundamental rights is by a non-state actor”, it held.

The Single Judge Bench, in the 181 page-judgment, made categorical findings, which were:

-While answering the substantial questions of law in favour of the plaintiffs, upheld the maintainability of the suit and recognising that fundamental rights can be enforced even against non-State actors.

-Objections relating to maintainability, limitation, and procedural defects cannot be raised at the second appellate stage if not urged earlier; the suit was found to disclose a valid and continuing cause of action.

-Civil courts are competent to adjudicate disputes involving infringement of fundamental rights by private or religious bodies, including challenges to excommunication.

-Fundamental rights, particularly under Article 25, are enforceable horizontally, and any byelaw or internal regulation must yield where it conflicts with constitutional guarantees.

-The defendants failed to establish endogamy as a valid or essential religious practice; it lacks binding religious or doctrinal sanction, including from the Vatican, and therefore cannot claim protection under Articles 25 or 26 of the Constitution of India.

-The insistence on endogamy, coupled with denial of No Objection Certificates (NOCs) for inter-community marriages unless membership is relinquished, amounts to coercion and undue influence, constituting a continuing wrong.

-Membership in the Church, being acquired by birth, cannot be taken away by imposing conditions through subsequent byelaws; any such deprivation violates Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution.

-Religious autonomy cannot be invoked to justify practices that infringe fundamental rights or offend constitutional morality.

-Excommunication or forced exit from the Church on the ground of inter-community marriage is unconstitutional and legally unsustainable.

-Non-Knanaya spouses and children cannot be denied membership rights; personal or customary law is not immune from judicial scrutiny where it violates fundamental rights.

“It is declared that while individuals may, out of personal volition, choose to adhere to endogamous preferences, any formulation—direct or implied—that legitimizes institutional endorsement, regulation, or encouragement of such practice, stands impermissible in law”, the Bench observed.

Cause Title: The Metropolitan Archbishop & Anr. v. Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithy & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:24904]

Appearances:

Petitioners: P.B. Krishnan (Sr.), Sabu George, Manu Vyasan Peter, Abraham Babu Kallivayalil, Jacob E Simon, Advocates.

Respondents: Renjith Thampan (Sr.), Pooja Sunil, V.M. Krishnakumar, N.M. Madhu, C.S. Rajani, Boby M. Sekhar, Agi Joseph, T.K. Krishnanunni (Sr.), Meena A., Vinod Ravindranath, K.C. Kiran, M.R. Mini, M. Devesh, Ashwin Sathyanath, Anish Antony Anathazhath, Thareeq Anver, Sivan Madathil, Margaret Maureen Drose, C.S. Manilal, S. Nidheesh, P. Thomas Geeverghese, Tony Thomas (Inchiparambil), E.S. Firos, Anish Lukose, Rayjith Mark, Roshan Jacob Mundackal, Millu Dandapani, Reji George, Rajeev P. Nair, Chacko Simon, K.M. Firoz, M. Shajna, M.H. Hanis, Kalam Pasha B., Vishakha J., Hasna Ashraf T.A, Anandu U.R., Sundeep Abraham, Sumathy Dandapani (Sr.), Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment