The court ruled that endogamy is not an essential religious practice for the Knanaya Catholic Community and upheld individual rights under Articles 25 and 21 against discriminatory practices of forced membership relinquishment.

JUDGMENT :

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 are the subject matters of these appeals.

Before this Court starts the Judgment, it 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. But still, the appellants insist that as a matter of custom, they are entitled to follow the practice.

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’.

Facts of the Case

1. Defendants 1 & 2 in OS No.106/2015 on the files of the Addl. Sub Court, Kottayam, a suit for declaration and consequential mandatory and prohibitory injunction, have come up in RSA No.656/2022, aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered against them by the Additional District Court-V, Kottayam in AS No.36/2021.

1.1 RSA No.23/2023 is filed by the additional 7th defendant in the aforesaid suit aggrieved by the judgment and decree in AS No.95/2021 decided by the Additional District Court-V, Kottayam along with AS No.36/2021. The other connected appeals, RSA Nos.675/2022 and 725/2022, were filed by the 1st appellant in AS No.65/2021 and the appellant in AS No.59/2021, respectively. The appellants in RSA Nos.675/2022 and 725/2022 are not parties to OS No.106/2015, and hence, they obtained leave of the first appellate court to file appeals against the judgment and decree of the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam, dated 30.4.2021 in OS No.106/2015.

2. The 1^st plaintiff is a Society registered under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 and the 2^nd plaintiff is the President of the 1^st plaintiff Society. The other plaintiffs are members of the Society. The defendants 1 and 3 are the Heads of the Institutions and 2, 4 to 6 are the Institutions within the Catholic Church. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants believe that the Catholic Church is One, Holy, Apostolic and Universal. According to the plaintiffs, defendants 1 & 2 are adopting an unholy practice of terminating the membership of those members in the parishes who enter the holy sacrament of marriage with a Catholic of any other Diocese. Thus, according to the plaintiffs, in the year 1991, a Society was formed with an intention to bring back those members of the 2^nd defendant whose memberships were terminated by the Diocese for marrying a Catholic from outside the Kottayam Diocese. It is further contended that the law of the Catholic Church dealing with the Holy Sacraments is called the Canon Law. There are separate Canon Laws for Latin Rite and the Oriental Rite in the Catholic Communion. The Canon Law for the Oriental Churches, namely the Code of Canon Law of Oriental Churches [The Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalaum (CCEO)] was promulgated by the Pontiff on 1.10.1991. It is further pointed out that the Oriental Churches, including the Syro-Malabar Archiepiscopal Church, are governed by the Canon Law. However, freedom is given to all the Eastern Churches enjoying “sui iuris” status to legislate through their senates. It is further alleged that defendants 1 and 2 compel members of the 2^nd defendant to marry members within the 2^nd defendant only, and if anyone marries a person from any other Catholic Dioc