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

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 maintainable

The 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 with

The 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 action

Though 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 community

A 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 represent the community. Therefore, this Court finds that the contention regarding the non-impleadment of the munity is only raised for an ornamental purpose without stating as to how a suit with the community as a defendant could be proceeded further. That apart, the courts below concluded that the defendants 1 and 2, who is the Church, represents the community at large. The said concurrent finding does not appear to this Court to be vitiated by any perversity requiring interference in exercise of the powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the presence of the community was not an issue affecting the maintainability of the suit at large.”

The Court remarked that even if the suit suffered from such an infirmity of not impleading the Knanaya Community, the same was cured by taking out the paper publication was mentioned above.

Permission of Central Government not required to file suit in which religious head of a foreign State impleaded

The appellants had contended the suit was hit by Section 86 of the CPC since the permission of the Central government was not obtained. However, the Court remarked that this was not required since the suit was not against foreign ruler, ambassadors or envoys but against which religious head of foreign State.

“When we look at the status of defendants 5 and 6, it is clear that they are not the foreign state but only the religious head of the foreign state. Moreover, no relief is claimed against them in the suit. Merely because certain representatives of a religious forum were impleaded in the suit, which according to this Court, is wholly unnecessary and not germane to the issue raised in the appeal, by itself is not a ground to non-suit the plaintiffs,” held the judge.

No procedural irregularity in the trial

The appellants had taken an argument that the trial court had erred in recasting the issues frame since two additional issues were raised when the Knanaya Catholic Congress got itself impleaded. Rejecting the same, the Court remarked:

“Going by the provisions of Order-XIV Rule-5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court has got the power to amend the issues or frame additional issues at any time before passing of the decree. Therefore, this Court finds that the contention of the appellants that the recasting of the issues had affected a fair trial cannot be accepted.”

It was also contended that the appellate court could not have framed issues for consideration. However, the Court found that the appellate court only framed certain points for consideration and also that there was no procedural irregularity because of the same.

Suit not barred by limitation

The Court held that the wrongdoing sought to be injuncted against was continuing in nature and therefore, therefore, limitation does not get extinguished. It also took note of a submission made by the Archeparchy in its written statement wherein it was admitted that the there is no forcible termination of the membership.

“the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree based on an admission in para 42 of the written statement. Secondly, what complained of, is a wrongdoing which is continuing in nature and has no authority of law. Therefore, so long as the wrongdoing recurs at the hands of defendants 1 and 2, the limitation does not get extinguished… In the present case, it is evident that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 had to relinquish their membership because of the stand of defendants 1 and 2 that those who wants to marry from outside the community must leave the community. The above stand is clear without sanctity of law. The refusal of the defendants 1 and 2 to readmit the plaintiffs 2 and 3 is a continuing wrong and hence the present suit cannot be considered as one barred by limitation,” the Court added.

Papal Bull did not create any special status to Kottayam Diocese

The Court took noted of the fact that the Kottayam Diocese was created after the promulgation of the Papal Bull in 1911 and this document does not afford any special status to the Kottayam Diocese.

The Court held:

“On a conspectus reading of the Papal Bull, it does not appear to this Court that any special status was intended to be created to the Kottayam Diocese. At the best, it can be construed as an administrative exercise. If a contrary intention is to be presumed, then something more should have found a place in the papal bull. Moreover, the so-called special status being accorded to Kottayam Diocese is purely an assumption of defendants 1 and 2 and not supported by any documents.”

Strict rules applicable to membership of an association cannot be applied here

Though the appellants contended that the Parish is nothing but an association of individuals and therefore, one must follow its rules if he/she has to stay in it. Several decisions were also relied on to support the contention.

The bye-law promulgated in the year 2009 in its clause 3 creates an embargo for a Knanaya male or a female to continue in the community, if he/she decided to choose a non-Knanaya as his/her spouse and they cannot come back to the community unless and until the death of the spouse, subject to the decision of the religious head. The Court further found that the bye-law was an indirect way of excommunicating a Knanaya member from the community because of his marriage with a non-Knanaya.

“On a conspectus reading of the clause, it is an undeniable fact that there is termination of the membership on refusal to follow the practice of endogamy…Once the membership is derived by birth, can defendants 1 and 2 change the rule and contend that, if one wants to sustain his membership, he must adhere to the bye law. This Court has difficulty in accepting the preposterous argument of the appellants. The promulgation of the byelaw must be viewed with circumspection and should be considered as a unilateral imposition of unethical conditions. Therefore, the contention…that to continue the membership, one will have to adhere to the rules of the association is fallacious… Even assuming for argument's sake such a custom was prevalent, the rules of the association cannot be applied in strict sense in a case where, a fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution of India is involved. Hence, in the given case where the rules of the association stand in conflict with the fundamental rights of an individual, there cannot be any doubt that the fundamental right must be given predominance.”

Forceful excommunication from the Church violates Article 25

The Court held that it can decide on the question whether a particular practice is religious or not:

“It must be remembered that certain practices, even though regarded as religious, may have stemmed merely on account of superstitious beliefs and, in that sense, be only an extraneous and unessential accretion to the religious belief. Such practices can be abrogated and are not protected under this Article. On the material evidence, it is certainly open for the court to decide whether a particular practice is religious in character or not. Therefore, it is not open for the appellants to contend that the entire issue is not open for judicial scrutiny.”

The Court further opined that the Church cannot interfere with the fundamental right under Article 25:

“it is an undeniable fact that the entire gamut of the case revolves around how far the conflict of the right under Article 25 and clause 3…bye-law could be reconciled…It is worthwhile to mention that the right of a religious community and every member thereof under Articles 25(1) and 26(b) to practice their religion is absolute and cannot be interfered with by the state or any member of any other community. But in the present case, the church itself stands in opposition to its members, especially if one of its members refuses to follow the practice of endogamy…In a case like this, when the pleadings on record indicate that failure of a member of a church to follow the practice of endogamy results in excommunication, the consequence is drastic, and it deprives a person of exercising his constitutional rights. In such a situation, it will be difficult for the courts to accept the suggestion that such practice must be upheld, as it is within the tenets of the religion.”

Knanaya community is not a religious denomination

Relying on an Apex Court decision , the Court found that Christianity does not recognise any caste classification and there is no distinction between different communities:

“The tenets of Christianity militate against persons professing Christian faith being divided or discriminated based on any such classification as the caste system. Based on the above, it is concluded that the claim of the defendants 1 and 2 that they are a religious denomination coming under Article 26(b) must fail because they have failed to establish the practice of endogamy as an essential religious practice. Axiomatically, the claim for protection under Article 29 must also fail.”

Civil court can entertain plea of violation of fundamental rights by non-State entities

The Court remarked:

“At the outset itself, this Court cannot subscribe to the above argument simply because, if accepted, there will be no forum to ventilate the grievances of infringement of fundamental rights by the non-state actors…it is inconceivable that one cannot invoke Article 226 in a case of the present nature. Even if the right under Article 226 is invoked, the appellants can easily destroy the said right by contending that the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked against a private person, unless he shows that so…this Court is inclined to conclude that because of operation of Article 32(3), it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the civil court is restricted in any manner and when infringement of such fundamental right occurs at the hands of a private individual, the right to invoke civil remedy is not obliterated under any circumstances, nor it is hedged by the presence of Article 32(3).”

Knanaya Church can solemnise marriage between a Knanaya and non-Knanaya

The Court concluded that the Knanaya Churtch can solemnise the marriage between a Knanaya and a non-Knanaya since it is admitted that there is difference in the religious rites of the Archdiocese of Kottayam and other dioceses and also since there is no special status created by the Papal Bull.

Non-Knanaya spouse can claim status of her husband's community

“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…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 Court held.

Case No: RSA No. 656 of 2022

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 163

Counsel for the appellants: P.B. Krishnan (Sr.), Manu Vyasan Peter, P.B. Subramyan, Sabu George, Abraham Babu Kallivayalil, Jacob E.Simon appeared for the Metropolitan Archbishop and the Archeparchy of Kottayam.

T. Krishnanunnu (Sr.), Meena A., Vinod Ravindranath, K.C. Kiran, M.R. Mini, M. Devesh, Ashwin Sathyanath, Anish Antony Anathazhath, Thareeq Anver, Jacob E. Simon and Srinath C.V. appeared for Knanaya Catholic Congress.

S. Sreekumar (Sr.), P. Martin Jose, R. Githesh, Thomas P.Kuruvilla, Ajay Ben Jose, Manjunath Menon, Sachin Jacob Ambat, Harikrishnan S., Ananthakrishnan Kartha, Anil D. Kartha, Suresh G., Sharath Eldo Philip, Sreekumar G., Ananthasankar A. Kartha for other appellants.

Counsel for the respondents: Shyam Padman (Sr.), Laya Mary Joseph , C.M.Andrews, Ashwathi Shyam, Swathy Sudhir, Shimleel Ibrahim T., S.Anupama appeared for Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithy.

Renjith Thampan (Sr.), Pooja Sunil, P. Thomas Geevarghese, Sumathy Dandapani (Sr.), C.S. Manilal, K.M. Firoz, V.M. Krishnakumar, N.M. Madhu, C.S. Rajani, Boby M. Sekhar, Agi Joseph, Sivan Madathil, Margaret Maureen Drose, 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, M. Shajna, M.H. Hanis, Kalam Pasha B., Vishakha J., Hasna Ashraf T.A., Anandu U.R., Sundeep Abraham, Sagar Roshan, Maya M. for the other respondents.

Click to Read/Download Judgment