Knanaya Community's Endogamy Not Essential Religious Practice, Excommunicating Members Marrying Outsiders Violates Rights: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Monday (March 23) held that the practice of endogamy among the Knanaya Christians is not an essential religious practice and excommunicating members for marrying outsiders violates their fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India.Justice Easwaran S. dismissed the appeals filed by the Archeparchy of Kottayam and the Knanaya Catholic Congress, and upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court.A Society named the Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithy had filed a suit before the Additional Sub-Court, Kottayam and the same was decreed declaring that a member of the Archeparchy of Kottayam or the Knanaya Community will not forfeit his/her membership in the archeparchy by marrying another Catholic from any other Diocese.The Sub-Court had also issued a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Archbishop and the Archeparchy from terminating a membership of any member for marrying a Catholic from another Diocese. Additionally, a mandatory injunction was also issued to then to provide equal rights and facilities to those members of the Knanaya Community who wishes to marry other Catholics and to re-admit the members along with their spouses and children who memberships were terminated for marrying from outside the Community.This was challenged in appeal before the Additional District Court, Kottayam and the appeals were dismissed. Aggrieved, the present Second Appeal was preferred before the High Court. The appellants had raised numerous contentions, including that the suit was barred by limitation, it is bad for non-joinder of the entire Knanaya community, etc.In the 183-page judgment, the High Court had framed, considered and answered 36 substantial questions of law and went on to uphold the findings of the courts below.Suit is maintainableThe Court rejected the appellant's argument that the suit was not maintainable as per Section 9 of the Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 since it was preferred by the Society. It remarked that the Society was represented by the President and that the other plaintiffs were impleaded in their personal capacity. The contention that the Society has operation only in and around Kottayam and cannot sue on behalf of the Knanaya community was also not accepted since the Court found that this issue was never considered by the courts below and therefore, it would be inappropriate for the High Court to do so.Order 1 Rule 8 CPC complied withThe Court held that the requirement under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was complied with since the plaintiffs had taken out notice at the trial stage as well as the appellate stage. It was also noted that several persons of the Community as well as the Knanaya Catholic Congress got impleaded in the appeals and therefore, it cannot be said that the procedural requirement was not complied with.Plaintiffs have cause of actionThough a contention was raised by the appellants that the plaintiffs did not have the cause of action required to maintain the suit, the Court refused to accept the same. It remarked that the High Court cannot consider the same at the appellate stage when the same was not raised before the trial court. Further, it was also observed that since the individual plaintiffs, who were members of the Knanaya Community that married outside, were present in the party array, the suit cannot be rejected on the ground that the first plaintiff Society did not have any cause of action.“It is beyond cavil that the plaintiffs 2 to 4 derived their right for membership on the church by their birth. This fact is admitted. Under what authority do the defendants 1 and 2 contend, that membership is lost because of marrying a non Knanaya person is not shown. At any rate, Ext.B1 bye law was issued only on 12.11.2008 (w.e.f. 6.1.2009). The said bye law can never be the determinative factor to decide the fate of membership derived by birth. At any rate, the refusal of the religious hierarchy under Ext.B19 to uphold the practice of endogamy leads to an irresistible conclusion that plaintiffs cannot be non-suited on the plea that they do not possess the requisite cause of action to maintain the suit. Thus, this court finds that the plea of the appellants that the plaintiffs 2 to 4 do not have the cause of action to maintain the suit is untenable and hence rejected,” the Court remarked.Knanaya Community need not be made a party to the suit, Church represents the communityA contention was raised that the Knanya Community was made a party in the suit and therefore, the effect of the decree affects the community at large. This was also rejected by the Court as it felt that since the Church was made a party, this was sufficient as the Church represents the community.The Court observed:“the learned Senior Counsel did not address this Court on what capacity the community should be made a party and who should...

Knanaya Community's Endogamy Not Essential Religious Practice, Excommunicating Members Marrying Outsiders Violates Rights: Kerala High Court

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

K. Salma Jennath

Knanaya Community's Endogamy Not Essential Religious Practice, Excommunicating Members Marrying Outsiders Violates Rights: Kerala High Court

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers