‘One in Christ’: Kerala High Court quotes Bible to end Knanaya community practice of expulsion for marrying ‘outside’

Justice Easwaran S dismissed the plea, concluding that the archeparchy’s actions were abhorrent to civilized society.

Before starting the judgment, the court noted that we wish to remind ourselves that the teachings of Christ, the divine law- the Bible, and the provisions of the canon law do not support the practice of endogamy, but still, the appellants insist that, as a matter of custom, they are entitled to follow the practice.

The order quoted a line from the Bible, saying, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”.

Background

The litigation originated from a 2015 suit filed by the Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithy, challenging the archeparchy’s “unholy practices” of terminating the membership of parishioners acquired through baptism.

The core subject of the plea is the validity of the practice of endogamy among the members of the Knanaya community and the legality of insisting on forceful relinquishment of membership in a parish church on the refusal to follow endogamy.

On April 30,2021, the trial court councluded that the practice of endogamy followed by the appellants cannot be sustained and that the plaintiffs have established their right to grant mandatory and also prohibitory injunctions.

The trial court declared that a member of the Archeparchy of Kottayam does not forfeit their membership by entering into the sacrament of marriage with a Catholic from any other Diocese.

The court restrained the Metropolitan Archbishop and the Archeparchy from terminating the membership of any parishioner on the grounds of marrying a Catholic from outside the community.

Knanaya community in Kerala

The Knanaya community is an endogamous, distinct ethnic group within the Saint Thomas Christian community of Kerala, India.

Tracing their roots to 72 Mesopotamian families led by Thomas of Cana in 345 CE, they are primarily part of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church.

Question of practice of endogamy

• There is no statutory personal law as far as the Knanaya community is concerned.
• Neither is the case that they have an uncodified personal law.
• What is projected is that, by usage and custom, the practice of endogamy has transformed into a personal law relating to marriage.
• The metropolitan archbishop and the archeparchy of Kottayam have mentioned in their written statement that endogamy is a custom and tradition of the Knanaya community, and a major part of the Knanaya community is spread into two churches within the Catholic Church (Syro Malabar and Syro Malankara), and the other part is spread into the Knanaya Syrian Orthodox Church.
• That is part of the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church.
• The Knanaya is an ethnic community and has the right to follow its custom of endogamy.
• A non-Catholic cannot become a Catholic by virtue of marriage, and therefore, no one can acquire a new religious right in the Catholic Church through a marriage.
• A person becomes a member of the Catholic Church only if he or she accepts the norms of the Catholic Church and baptism.

‘Autonomy of individual is absolute’

• The autonomy of the individual in this regard is absolute and admits of no ecclesiastical (relating to the Church/clergy) encroachment.
• The invocation of religious autonomy cannot be transmuted into a licence to infringe on 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.
• While individuals may, out of personal volition, choose to adhere to endogamous preferences, any formulation—direct or implied—that legitimises institutional endorsement, regulation, or encouragement of such practice, stands impermissible in law.

Endogamy social arrangement or custom?

• The question as to whether a social arrangement within a social group or religious community would come within the purview of Article 13(3) (b) is another aspect to be considered.
• This court is of the considered view that the law referred to in Article 13 must be a public rule or of such other nature explicitly stated in Article 13 and does not take any social arrangement within a social group of a religious community.
• The question as to whether endogamy is followed as a custom may not have any significance since custom or usage also must conform to the rights under Part III of the Constitution.
• The appellants may succeed if it is shown that the practice of endogamy falls within the sphere of ‘essential religious’ practice.
• The church contends that it is entitled to follow endogamy as a matter of right since it is within its religious domain.
• But then, the larger question is whether such a custom is established in the present case.

Pope’s order of 1911

• It is indisputable that the Kottayam Diocese was created only after the promulgation of the Papal Bull (a formal, authoritative written decree or proclamation issued by the Pope) in the year 1911.
• It is nobody’s case that the metropolitan archbishop and the archeparchy of Kottayam were governed by codified forms of rules of association.
• What is projected in these appeals is the ethnicity of the Southist people (Knanaya community), who got separated from the Northists on the promulgation of the Papal Bull in 1911.
• The necessity for the issuance of the Bull is traced to the letter dated March 1, 1911.
• On a cursory glance through that order, it appears that the Knanaya community found it difficult to go along with the members of the other groups, namely the Northists, and this created several difficulties for the religious heads to get along with the religious rites.
• Two suggestions were thus placed before the Pope, which are reflected in order.
  Though it appears that such a request was given, St Pius X had issued a Papal Bull suo motu in 1911, creating the Kottayam Diocese.

• Extensive arguments were addressed on behalf of the appellants, contending that the creation of the Kottayam Diocese pursuant to the papal bull itself shows a special status to the Knanaya community and thus they are entitled to preserve their ethnicity.
• On a conspectus reading of the Papal Bull, it does not appear to this court that any special status was intended to be created for the Kottayam Diocese.
• At 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.
• The so-called special status being accorded to the Kottayam Diocese is purely an assumption of the defendants and not supported by any documents.
• 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.