The Kerala High Court has held that the practice of endogamy among members of the Knanaya Catholic community is not an essential religious practice and that excommunicating Church members for marrying outside the Church violated their rights promised under the Constitution.
The court made the observation while dismissing the appeals filed by the Archeparchy of Kottayam and others, who challenged the findings of the trial court that no member of the community would forfeit membership in the archeparchy by marrying a Catholic from any other diocese. They had contended that Church members had to to follow the practice as a matter of custom.
The Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samiti and others had challenged the practice of endogamy in the Knanaya Church before the trial court.
Prior to the judgment, the Bench of Justice Easwaran S. reminded that the teachings of Christ, the divine law—the Bible, and the provisions of the canon law did 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 court added.
Further, the court observed that though membership in a particular diocese is not a fundamental right, any attempt to deprive the membership obtained by birth on account of refusal of the member to follow the practice of endogamy amounted to deprivation of one’s rights under Article 25 of the Constitution. 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 amounted to violation of Article 21 read with Article 25 of the Constitution.
Impermissible in law
In its concluding observations, the court said that the appellants conspicuously failed to establish that the practice of endogamy attained the character of an essential religious tenet, or that it conferred upon them any enforceable authority to regulate the personal choices of members through coercive or non-coercive expulsion or excommunication. 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.
The autonomy of the individual in this regard is absolute and does not amount to any ecclesiastical encroachment. The court said it is further constrained to observe that the invocation of religious autonomy cannot be transmuted into a licence to infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, leading up to excommunication of an individual. The findings that the appellants are disentitled from receiving solemnisation 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.
Consequently, the appeals, being bereft of merit and substance fail and are accordingly dismissed with costs, the court said.
Published – March 25, 2026 09:18 pm IST
