Kochi/ Kasaragod: In a ruling that cuts through centuries of tradition and places individual choice at the centre, the Kerala High Court on Monday held that the Knanaya Catholic Church cannot enforce endogamy, regulate the personal lives of its members, or deny sacraments to those marrying outside the community.

After nine days of continuous hearing, Justice Easwaran S dismissed the Knanaya Church’s appeal and upheld earlier findings in favour of the Knanaya Catholic Naveekarna Samithi (KCNS). This reformist group has long challenged the practice of forced endogamy.

The judgment is expected to directly benefit Justin John, an autorickshaw driver from Kasaragod, who, since 2023, has been fighting to have his marriage with Vijimol Shaji solemnised at the Knanaya Church’s St Anne’s Parish in Kottody in Kallar panchayat. Although Vijimol is a Catholic, she is not a Knanaya Catholic, and the Kottayam Archeparchy -- a metropolitan Archeparchy exclusively for the Knanaya faithful -- had refused to solemnise the marriage on that ground. The ruling also strengthens the case of Biju Uthup (69), who was the first to take the Knanaya Church to court in 1989 after being denied ‘Vivaha Kuri’ for his marriage. He is currently pursuing a separate case before the Kottayam Munsiff Court over his daughter’s membership in the Church. Both Justin John and Biju Uthup were respondents in the KCNS case.

The High Court on March 23, made one thing clear: while individuals are free to follow endogamy in their personal lives, the Church as an institution cannot impose it.

The judgment strikes at the heart of the exclusionary Knanaya Catholic Archeparchy of Kottayam. The Archeparchy comes under the larger umbrella of the Catholic Church, headed by the Pope in the Vatican. However, the Archeparchy claims its members are of Jewish origin and, citing "purity of blood or race", it does not allow its members to marry a Catholic from outside the Kottayam Archeparchy.

It claims to control the lives of three lakh faithful spread across India, North America, Europe, Australia, and the Middle East.

Those who chose otherwise were often denied ‘vivaha kuri’ -- a no-objection certificate required for marriage in the Church -- or were forced to formally exit the Church by signing a ‘permission to leave the eparchy’ (PLEK).

The High Court has now decisively rejected that authority. Reading out the verdict, Justice Easwaran said the institutional encouragement of endogamy is “impermissible in law”.

The Church had also failed to prove that endogamy is an essential religious practice or a binding custom, he said, and ruled that it does not have any authority to regulate members’ personal choices, whether through coercive or non-coercive expulsion or excommunication.

“The autonomy of an individual in this regard is absolute,” the court said, adding that religious freedom cannot be used as a shield to violate constitutional rights. Denying sacraments, including marriage rites, based on not following endogamy, the court held, runs against “constitutional morality, individual autonomy and equality.”

The court said that while individuals may, out of personal volition, choose to adhere to endogamous preferences, any formulation that legitimises institutional encroachment, regulation, or encouragement of such practice is impermissible in law. “The autonomy of an individual in this regard is absolute and admits no external encroachment.”

 A legal battle spanning decades
The case began as a personal fight. In 1989, Biju Uthup, then a young employee with the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), approached the court after the Church refused to issue him a ‘vivaha kuri’.

In 2014, the Knanaya Catholic Naveekarna Samithi (KCNS) directly challenged the practice of endogamy itself.

Over the years, the courts consistently ruled in his favour. But the case took a complicated turn in 2017 when the High Court, while deciding the matter, made observations against endogamy without hearing out the Church. That procedural lapse led to a review, an appeal, and eventually a trip to the Supreme Court.

In 2018, the Supreme Court faulted the High Court for not following due process. It sent the matter back, directing a fresh hearing after giving all sides a full opportunity to argue.

That rehearing has now culminated in Monday’s verdict, this time after hearing the Church in detail.

On the fifth day of the hearing, the court was informed that the Church had introduced a bylaw on endogamy only in 2008, nearly two decades after Biju Uthup was ousted in 1989, when no such rule existed. The court took a dim view of this disclosure, noting that such crucial information had been withheld until then.

The present trigger
In 2023, in Kasaragod, an autorickshaw driver, Justin John, found himself in the same position as Biju Uthup decades earlier. A member of the Knanaya Church, he wanted to marry Vijimol Shaji, a Roman Catholic woman from a neighbouring parish. The Church initially gave him a no-objection certificate for engagement, but later refused permission for the wedding unless he agreed to leave the Church. Justin refused to take the easy exit route and decided to challenge the powerful Church.

On May 18, 2023, Justin and Vijimol exchanged garlands outside her church, but their marriage could not be solemnised within the Knanaya Church.

Justin moved the High Court, alleging contempt of earlier court orders that had directed the Church to issue such certificates to those who wanted to marry outside the Church. He held Mar Mathew Moolakkatt, the head of the Kottayam Archeparchy, responsible for the humiliation on his wedding day. His petition was clubbed with the larger batch of cases.

When contacted, Biju Uthup said his decades-long case gained fresh momentum after Justin came forward. “I hope more youngsters raise their voice against this discriminatory practice. If we are seeing even a glimmer of justice today, it is because people like Justin chose to speak up,” he said.

Uthup said his own case, seeking membership for his daughter, is coming up in May. “With today’s judgment, we have the edge. I will be personally cross-examining Mar Mathew Moolakkatt,” he said.

Calls to Fr Michael Vettikkaatt, former Vicar General of the Kottayam Archeparchy, who has been handling the Church’s legal cases, went unanswered. He was present throughout the court hearings.

The KCNS, which has led the reform movement, put it bluntly: individual members are free to practice endogamy within their families or social circles, but the Church cannot be used as an instrument to enforce such preferences.