Madras High Court Settles Thiruparankundram Dispute in Tie-Breaker Ruling, Balancing Religious Rights with Heritage Law

MADURAI, TAMIL NADU – The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has delivered a decisive tie-breaker judgment in the long-standing Thiruparankundram Hill dispute, providing a nuanced legal framework for the coexistence of Hindu and Muslim communities at the sacred site. Justice R. Vijayakumar, appointed as the third judge following a split verdict, has affirmed the hill's official name as "Thiruparankundram Hill," imposed an interim ban on animal sacrifice pending a civil court determination, and delineated the rights of Muslims to offer prayers at a specific location on the hill.

The judgment resolves three writ petitions that encapsulated the complex interplay of religious freedom, property rights, and heritage preservation laws. The ruling largely concurs with the earlier findings of Justice S. Srimathy, one of the two judges in the original Division Bench, bringing a measure of finality to a dispute that had stoked communal tensions.

Background: A Split Verdict on Faith and Practice

The case stemmed from a series of petitions filed by Hindu devotees and organizations. They sought to prohibit animal sacrifice on the hill, prevent the use of the name "Sikkandar Malai" for the hillock, and stop prayers from being conducted by the Sikkandar Badusha Dargah administration in the Nellithoppu area.

The hill is a site of immense religious significance, housing the ancient Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Temple at its base and the Sikkandar Badusha Dargah at its southern peak. In June, a Division Bench of Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice S. Srimathy delivered a split verdict. Justice Banu had dismissed the petitions, favouring the continuation of existing practices. In contrast, Justice Srimathy allowed the petitions, calling for restrictions on animal sacrifice and affirming the hill's traditional name. This divergence necessitated the appointment of a third judge to resolve the impasse.

The Nomenclature Dispute: Upholding Historical and Revenue Records

A central issue was the petitioners' claim of "mischievous" attempts to rename the hill "Sikkandar Malai." Justice Vijayakumar, concurring with Justice Srimathy, held unequivocally that the hill's official name is and shall remain Thiruparankundram Hill.

The court's reasoning was anchored in a wealth of historical and official documentation. Justice Vijayakumar cited Gazette notifications from 1908 and 1923 under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, which identified the area as "Thiruparankundram Rock" and declared 172.2 acres of it as a protected monument under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). Furthermore, revenue records and a pivotal 1920 civil court decree consistently referred to the hill by its traditional name.

In a powerful analogy, Justice Vijayakumar articulated the principle of ownership and naming rights:

"If a person owns a house in the City of Madurai, he is at liberty to name the said house as per his wishes. However, he cannot either by himself or insist the others to call the entire City as per the name chosen by him. Similarly, when the entire Thiruparankundram Hillock has been declared to be the property of Devasthanam, merely because the title has been declared in favour of Mohammedans to a minuscule part of the said hill, it cannot be contended that the entire hill should be named after the Mosque/Dhargah."

The court noted that an earlier Privy Council decision had established that out of the entire hill, the Dargah's rights were limited to the 33-cent Nellithoppu area and the small portion where the shrine itself is built. Given the temple Devasthanam's ownership over the vast majority of the hill, the court found no legal basis for renaming the entire geographical feature after the Dargah. The judge also observed that renaming the hill would "certainly hurt the sentiments of the Hindu devotees who are performing Giri Pradakshinam" (circumambulation of the hill).

Animal Sacrifice: Statutory Bar and the Burden of Proof

On the contentious practice of animal sacrifice, Justice Vijayakumar imposed a temporary prohibition, directing that the issue of it being a customary right must be established before a competent civil court. Until such a determination, no animal sacrifice, cooking, or serving of non-vegetarian food is permitted anywhere on the hill.

The court's decision rested on two key legal foundations: the lack of established proof for the custom and a direct statutory bar under heritage protection laws. Justice Vijayakumar observed that when a customary practice is asserted by one party and denied by another, the burden of proof lies with the asserting party.

"When one side asserts that there is a practice from time immemorial and the other side denies the same, the party who asserts such a customary practice has to approach the competent Civil Court to establish the same," the judgment stated.

Crucially, the court found an existing statutory prohibition against the practice. As the entire hillock is a protected monument under the ASI, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959, are applicable. Justice Vijayakumar highlighted Rule 8(g), which prohibits bringing any animal onto a protected site for purposes other than maintenance, and Rule 8(c), which bans cooking and consumption of food unless specifically permitted. He concluded:

"Therefore, as on today, there is a statutory bar against the traditional practice of animal sacrifice over the Thiruparankundram Hillock."

The court dismissed the argument that because animal sacrifice occurs at other temples and dargahs, it should be allowed here. It reasoned that the Dargah's location atop a hillock considered sacred by Hindus, coupled with the statutory ASI protections, creates a unique legal context that cannot be overridden by citing practices elsewhere.

Right to Worship: A Conditional and Balanced Approach

Regarding the third issue—the right of Muslims to offer prayers in the Nellithoppu area—Justice Vijayakumar adopted a balanced approach, largely concurring with Justice Banu's earlier view. He affirmed that the Muslim community holds title to the 33-cent Nellithoppu area and cannot be denied the right to pray there.

However, this right is not absolute. The court imposed strict conditions to ensure that the religious rights of Hindu devotees are not infringed upon. The judgment clarified that while the Nellithoppu area belongs to the Muslim community, the traditional footsteps leading up to it belong to the temple Devasthanam and also provide access to the Kasi Vishwanathar Temple atop the hill.

Therefore, the court permitted prayers at Nellithoppu only during the festivals of Ramzan and Bakrid. It explicitly directed that these gatherings must not obstruct the pathway for Hindu devotees or defile the traditional steps. The restrictions on animal sacrifice and non-vegetarian food also apply to the Nellithoppu area pending a civil court ruling.

Legal Implications and Conclusion

The Thiruparankundram Hill judgment is a significant judicial pronouncement on navigating disputes where religious sentiments, property titles, and national heritage laws intersect. For legal practitioners, it reinforces several key principles: 1. Primacy of Official Records: In disputes over nomenclature and ownership, historical government records, civil court decrees, and Gazette notifications hold preeminent evidentiary value. 2. Burden of Proof for Customary Rights: The onus is on the party claiming a customary religious right to affirmatively prove its existence and antiquity before a civil court, particularly when it is contested. 3. Statutory Regulations Overriding Religious Practice: Even established religious practices can be regulated or prohibited by secular laws enacted for public order, morality, health, or, as in this case, the preservation of national heritage. The ASI Rules served as a critical, non-discriminatory statutory bar. 4. Balancing Competing Rights: The court meticulously balanced the right to property and worship (of the Dargah) with the right to religious sentiment and access (of the temple), crafting a solution that allows for conditional coexistence rather than outright exclusion.

By referring the question of customary practice to a civil court for a detailed trial on evidence, the High Court has followed established legal procedure, avoiding a summary decision on a deeply contested factual issue. This judgment provides a clear judicial framework for managing shared sacred spaces, emphasizing that while faith is protected, it must operate within the bounds of established law and mutual respect.