The Issue Of An Individual Being Barred From The Knanaya Catholic Church For Marrying Someone Outside Their Community

DATE OF JUDGEMENT :
30th April 2021.

JUDGES :
Honourable Justice Sri. Sudheesh Kumar S, Addl. Sub Judge.

PARTIES :

Plaintiffs

1. Knanaya ; Catholic Naveekarana Samithy
2. T.O. Joseph
3. Lukose Mathew K
4. C.K. Punnen

Respondents

1. The Metropolitan Archbishop
2. The Archeparchy of Kottayam
3. The Major Archbishop
4. Synod of the Bishop of the Syro Malabar Major Archiepiscopal Church
5. Congregation; for the Oriental Churches
6. Congregation for; the Doctrine of Faith Piazza
7. Knanaya Catholic Congress

OVERVIEW

This judgement concerns the Knayana Catholic Community of Kerala.

It focuses on abolishing the practise of endogamy, which is violative of Article 25 of our Constitution.

Any individual who chooses to marry outside their diocese cannot be expelled from their Catholic Church as per the judgement.

The court held that the right to marriage is a very integral part of the fundamental right of Right to life and personal liberty and thus the custom of Kottayam diocese cannot be above it.

The court also stated that endogamy cannot be established as a custom it is against the teachings of Jesus Christ.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

1. Order I Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code - this rule deals with the concept of the representative suit. A representative suit is a type of suit which is filed by one or more individuals on behalf of themselves and the others who have the same interest in the particular suit. However, it is the general rule which states that everybody interested in a suit ought to be joined as parties to it.
2. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code - Under this section, all the courts are supposed to try every civil suit unless it has been barred. It states that the courts shall, when subjected to the provisions which are contained in this code, have the jurisdiction to try all the cases which are civil except those where the cognizance is barred by either an express or an implied manner.
3. Section 86 of Code of Civil Procedure - This section provides for sovereign immunity in India. It states that no suit can be instituted against the foreign states in India considering the exception of prior written consent of the government.
4. Article 21 - as per this article, no individual can be deprived of their right to life or personal liberty, except by the procedure which is established by law. It also entitles an individual with their right to marry and to choose as to whom they want to marry.
5. Article 25 - This article talks about the right to religion which is granted by the Constitution of our country. Under this, every individual has the right and freedom to profess, practice, and propagate the religion of their choice in a free manner.

ISSUES

1. Whether the present case is maintainable under Order I Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code?
2. Whether the subject matter of this case can be included under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code?
3. Whether the suit can be considered as maintainable against defendant number 5 and 6, because of the lack of consent from the Central Government according to Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
4. Whether the practice of endogamy is established, considering the force of law in the Knanaya Catholic Community?

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

1. The respondent’s claimed that plaintiff number 2 and 3 do not have the right to represent the members of the second defendant as they are not the members of the Archeparchy of Kottayam. The respondent also contended that the specific reliefs which have been prescribed under the Specific Relief Act cannot be claimed under Order I Rule 8 of CPC because they had projected Section 4 and Section 4 clause one sub clause j, i.e. Section 4(1)(j) of the Specific Relief Act to reinforce their contentions. They also mentioned that different interests cannot be clubbed in a representative suit under this order and the plaintiffs number 2 and 3, who are not the members of the second defendant do not hold any common interest with the plaintiff who retains the membership in the second defendant. They further contended that the second defendant, which is also an unincorporated body is not in a representative capacity to represent its members in the list and the effect of this defect is their decision, that in the present list will bind all the members of the second defendant without providing them with an opportunity to resist the claims of the plaintiff, by utilizing the case of ‘Corporation of Trivandrum V. K. Narayana Pillai’. The court held that in the present case the plaintiffs have filed a suit in the representative capacity and have also arrayed 2nd defendant as the part of Syro Malabar Church which is headed by the 1st defendant. They stated that there exists no form of hindrance for any member of the second defendant to challenge the claim of the plaintiff instituted under this particular rule. The court also stated that the respondents have also mentioned the case of ‘Kamalakshi and Ors. V. Kunchiyan Bahulayan and Ors.’ However in this case the court held that while dealing with the procedure to entertain an application for leave under Order I Rule 8 of CPC when the addresses of the individuals re ascertainable, then it is a matter which the court must be told. Thus, the contention that the respondents had put forward, about there being a lack of list of persons who are represented by the plaintiffs appears to be limbless in the eyes of law and was discarded by the court. The court also stated that for the contention of the respondent’s that there is a lack of public common right which prevents the plaintiffs from launching this representative suit, and it is untenable as per the order. It was thus, that the court stated that the present list under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable.

2. The next contention that was raised by the respondents was, that the reliefs that were asked to be sought in the plaint and the cause of action along with the subject matter which was raised, in a way interfere with the rights of the defendants to manage their religious affairs. This case is against the fundamental right which is guaranteed by the Constitution of India and they have every right to manage the affairs of their religion. The respondent stated that even if the plaintiffs had a grievance they could have addressed it through the priestly tribunals. However, it was further stated that the plaintiffs had filed the case to resist the compulsive form of endogamy which was being practiced amongst the members of Archdiocese of Kottayam, while contending that it stands in violation of the Canon law, the Constitution of our country, against the Holy Bible and also the International Covenants on Civil and Political rights. The plaintiffs have relied on cases like: ‘Abdulla Bin Ali and Others, V. Galappa and Others' where it was held by the court that the allegations which are made in the plaint will decide the forum and also the jurisdiction will not depend on the defence which is taken by the defendants in the written statement. Another case was ‘Smt. Ganga Bai V. Vijay Kumar and Others' where it was held by the honourable Supreme Court that every individual has the inherent right to bring a suit of a civil nature unless it is barred by any statute. The court also acknowledged the case of ‘PMA Metropolitan V. Moran Mar Marthoma' which was put forward by the plaintiffs and where it was held that: the civil courts will have the jurisdiction to accept the suits for the violation of fundamental rights which are guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the constitution of India. The term civil nature which is used in Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code has a wider ambit than even the civil proceedings and it will extend to religious matters which will have civil consequences. It was also mentioned that Section 9 has a very wide ambit and in the cases where, an ecclesiastical court is absent then the religious dispute will be cognizable, except in those rare cases where the declaration which is sought could constitute a religious right. The court also stated that there exists no specific averment in the form of written statement which will help in forming an opinion that the second defendant is an independent and a voluntary association, instead the facts reveal that it is the part of Catholic Church where Canon law being considered as its Constitution and thus, we can easily conclude that the subject matter and the cause of action along with the relief’s which are sought in the plaint will fall within the walls of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. It was in this issue where the defendants had pressed the allegations which contended that, the suit is undefendable against defendant number 5 and 6 as they are Offices of Vatican City State, and according to them Apostolic Nuncio is the ambassador of Vatican City state. When filing a suit against foreign rulers or ambassadors and invoice it is essential that the suit is instituted as per Section 86 of the code of Civil Procedure along with the written consent of the central government. To this the plaintiffs mentioned, that in their plaint in paragraph 7, they have arrayed defendants from number 3 to 6 as they represent the disciplinary and supervisory hierarchy which, overseas defendants number 1 and 2, and those are responsible to maintain the holiness of the Catholic Church. The plaintiffs also mentioned that, the defendants, from number 3 to defendant number 6 have failed in this mission, as the sole purpose was to eradicate compulsive endogamy, which was being practised by defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiffs also, did not seek any sort of relief’s against defendants number 5 and 6 and the averments in the plaint reveal that defendants number 5 and 6, have been read in the list as religious disciplinary and supervisory hierarchy in the Catholic churches. They stated that, it is because of these reasons that the permission of the central government under Section 86 of Code of Civil Procedure, in order to institute a suit against the foreign rulers is not required here. The court stated that it was found in the case of ‘Indira R. Pillai V. Federal Bank and Others' where the reference regarding the difference between the term agents in order five and order three of the Code of Civil Procedure on a different factual matrix, would be applicable to the case at hand, and has not been explained before the court and so this contention, that the respondents have held regarding the non issuance of the summons is found undefendable and his hence discarded.

4. It was pertaining to this issue that, defendant number 1, 2 and 7 had argued before the court that, members of the Knayana community have been practicing endogamy as they had migrated from Mesopotamia, and also contended that their community continued this practice till the year 1911. They also stated that diocese created only four Catholics belonging to their community who have been practicing endogamy for the last 17 centuries. However, the plaintiffs denied this and contended that the issue regarding the practice of endogamy in the community is not a relevant issue in the list but whether the second defendant being the Diocese of the Catholic Church is entitled with the authority to forfeit the membership of its members for the reason of violating an illegal practise of endogamy. They also stated that, there is no evidence to back the fact that their community has been practicing endogamy as a custom, and stated that, the practice of endogamy is a clear violation of not just the Bible but also the Canon law and also the Article of Faith and the Indian constitution along with International Covenants. The defendants resisted this by stating that, the Old Testament in Bible is fully supportive of the practice of endogamy and the Bible does not prohibit it in any sense. The court stated that on a close analysis of the Bible and the Canon law, along with particular laws and Article of Faith, it can be clearly stated that Jesus Christ stood for unconditional love without any form of discrimination amongst humans and he also advised to his followers to consider everybody as equal. Thus, it can be stated that the Christian religion cannot encourage discrimination as Jesus stood against it and it is why the Christian religion does not recognize the caste system. It was then that the court stated that the defendants had failed to establish the fact that the laws of the church support the practice of endogamy in their community.

CONCLUSION

India is the land of democracy; this statement is not something new to any of us. However, even after being one of the most diverse countries and standing as a solid democracy for about 73 years, it is astonishing as to how we let something like religion, which is supposed to be a belief or the way in which we worship our God, something so pious to ruin the very basic essence of humanity and living together as a union.

Marriage is considered to be a very sacred institution in our country, and even though we have come a very long way in terms of the development in various fields, we sadly continue to be the ones who denied the development of an open mind. The right to choose which religion to follow, and to follow it nonetheless is guaranteed to all of us by the Constitution of a country. We are also entitled with the right to choose as to whom we want to marry.

Apart from this, we also talk a lot about equality and how our laws treat everyone equally, yet, we failed to recognise all religions to be equal, and something like love which is beyond the caste or religion or gender of a person can be the reason to expel them from their community. It is about time that, we understand that there is no religion or no God who has asked us to consider their religion above all others, rather all of them together speak about respecting everybody and treating everybody in an equal and fair manner. along with living in harmony.

We need to come together and abolish concepts like this, which stand against the very basic nature of humanity and consider any other human as inferior to us. Marriage is a bond of two individuals and their families and it should be kept unaffected by either the religion or the caste or the gender or the race or even the place of birth of an individual, as it is a personal choice and should be respected. Love is a very pure emotion and it exists beyond the boundaries of religion or caste and we should not try to restrict it in anyway.

Following a religion is also a personal choice and expelling someone from their community, just because they choose to love someone who is not of the same religion or does not belong to the same caste would be very wrong apart from being unconstitutional and illegal.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement