Split Verdict at Madras HC on Thiruparankundram Hill Religious Practices, Naming; Matter Referred to Chief Justice - 2025-06-26

Madras High Court Delivers Split Verdict on Thiruparankundram Hill Disputes; Matter Escalates to Chief Justice

Madurai, Tamil Nadu: A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, comprising Hon'ble Mrs. Justice J. Nisha Banu and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice S.Srimathy , delivered differing judgments on a batch of six writ petitions concerning religious practices, naming rights, and heritage management at the historic Thiruparankundram Hill. Given the divergence of opinions, the matter has been referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders. The judgment was pronounced on June 24, 2025.

The Thiruparankundram Hill is a significant site housing the ancient Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple (one of Lord Muruga 's Arupadai Veedu), the Sikandar Badusha Dargah, and Jain monuments. The hill is also a protected site under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

Case Overview and Multifaceted Petitions

The Court heard a complex set of six writ petitions (W.P.(MD)Nos.2277, 3703 & 2678 of 2025, 15565 & 23198 of 2023, and 8523/2017) raising several contentious issues:

Animal Sacrifice & Dargah Practices: Petitions sought to prevent the Sikandar Badusha Dargah from performing animal sacrifices and serving non-vegetarian food on the hill, citing disturbance to Hindu religious sentiments and the hill's sacredness. Another petition sought to prevent the Dargah from conducting prayers or gatherings in the Nellithoppu area, allegedly part of the Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Thirukovil .

Naming of the Hill: Objections were raised against the Dargah referring to Thiruparankundram Hill as "Sikkandar Malai." A separate petition sought to declare the hill as " Samanar Kundru ," asserting Jain historical claims.

Civic Amenities and Dargah Administration: One petitioner sought directions for civic amenities (roads, lights, water, toilets) for visitors to both the Dargah and the Temple. The Dargah's trustee sought non-interference in its administration and permission for renovation works.

Heritage Protection: The status of the hill as a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, was a central theme, with the ASI reporting unauthorized activities like painting on Jain beds.

Key Arguments Presented

Petitioners (Hindu groups/individuals): Argued that the entire hill is sacred to Hindus , and animal sacrifice by the Dargah is a recent development that hurts their sentiments. They relied on historical judgments, including a Privy Council decision, affirming the temple's primary ownership.

Sikandar Badusha Dargah: Contended that animal sacrifice ( Kanthoori ) and communal feasts are centuries-old religious practices protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. They cited the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, to maintain the status quo as of August 15, 1947, and argued that historical judgments recognized their rights to the Nellithoppu , mosque, and flagstaff.

State Government & Police: Emphasized maintaining public order and communal harmony, detailing peace committee meetings held. They noted that animal sacrifice is practiced not only at the Dargah but also at some other Hindu temples in the region.

Archaeological Survey of India (ASI): Confirmed the hill's status as a protected monument. Stated that animal sacrifice is generally not a practice in mosques or dargahs and that unauthorized activities, including painting on Jain beds with green enamel, had been reported and an FIR lodged. The ASI also mentioned that their attempt to conduct a drone survey was obstructed.

Jain Mutt: Sought declaration of the hill as " Samanar Kundru " based on historical Jain presence and scriptures.

Justice J. Nisha Banu 's Common Order: Dismissal of Petitions

In her detailed order, Justice J. Nisha Banu proposed dismissing all writ petitions. Key aspects of her reasoning included:

Historical Adjudication: Emphasized that the rights of the Temple and the Dargah over specific areas of the hill were settled by civil courts, culminating in the Privy Council's judgment in P.C. Appeal No.5 of 1930, which largely upheld the trial court's findings in O.S.No.4 of 1920. These judgments recognized the Temple's ownership over most of the hill, while also delineating areas like Nellithope for the Dargah.

Animal Sacrifice: Noted that the Tamil Nadu Animals and Birds Sacrifices Prohibition Act, 1950, was repealed in 2004, meaning no statutory bar currently exists against animal sacrifice at religious places in Tamil Nadu. She observed that such practices occur in multiple Hindu temples in the Madurai region and that a selective ban would be discriminatory. The District Collector's report, following a peace committee meeting, also confirmed the Dargah's traditional practice.

Naming of the Hill: Did not specifically address the renaming controversy in her final conclusions but dismissed the petitions seeking to prohibit the Dargah's practices which included the context of the Dargah's claims.

Jain Claims: Dismissed the plea to declare the hill " Samanar Kundru ," citing scant rights of the petitioner over the hill and pending litigation on the subject before the Supreme Court.

Civic Amenities: Rejected the plea for extensive civic amenities like roads and toilets on the hill, concurring with the Temple's submission that such constructions would damage the hill (considered sacred as a 'Linga' and a protected monument) and compromise its holiness.

ASI's Role & Construction: Acknowledged the hill as a protected national monument and stressed that no construction or alteration should occur without ASI permission to protect its physical structure, while traditional religious practices that do not damage the monument could continue.

Places of Worship Act, 1991: Referred to the Act's provisions barring conversion of places of worship and maintaining their religious character as of August 15, 1947.

Justice Nisha Banu concluded by stating, "Accordingly, all the writ petitions stand dismissed."

Justice S.Srimathy 's Dissenting Order: Specific Directions and Partial Allowance

Justice S.Srimathy , in a separate, differing order, provided a detailed historical account and proposed a different outcome for several petitions:

W.P.(MD)No.15565/2023 (Dargah prayers in Nellithoppu ): Allowed, opining that conducting prayers by the Dargah during Ramzan or Bakrid in Nellithoppu was a new practice and should not be permitted.

W.P.(MD)Nos.2277 & 2678/2025 (Animal Sacrifice & Naming):

Animal Sacrifice: Directed the Dargah to approach a civil court to establish if " Kanthoori " animal sacrifice was an established practice in the Dargah prior to the O.S.No.4 of 1920 judgment. Until then, impliedly, the practice would be on hold. She noted the local sentiment against non-vegetarian practices near the temple.

Naming: Held that the hill's name is "Tiruparankundram Hill" and it cannot be called "Sikkandar Malai." She condemned the pamphlet terming the hill "Sikkandar Malai" as mischievous and an attempt to create communal disharmony, and noted instances of Jain caves and signboards being painted green.

W.P.(MD)No.3703/2025 (Declare " Samanar Kundru "): Dismissed the prayer to rename the hill but directed that the Jain Caves on the hill must be protected.

W.P.(MD)No.8523/2017 (Civic Amenities for Dargah): Dismissed, reasoning that electricity was unnecessary due to the 6 PM entry restriction (citing security issues and a past explosives seizure case near the Dargah, though it ended in acquittal). Roads and toilets were deemed damaging to the hill. Manual carrying of water was suggested for both temple and dargah.

W.P.(MD)No.23198/2023 (Dargah Admin/Renovation): Disposed of, directing the Dargah to seek permission from the ASI for any renovation or construction work.

ASI Survey & Quarrying: Prohibited any quarrying on the hill. Crucially, directed the ASI to survey the entire Thiruparankundram Hill within one year, demarcate all protected monuments (temples, Dargah, Jain sites), note physical features, and submit a report to the Court. This was to aid in understanding and preserving the religious harmony and heritage.

Justice Srimathy concluded with a list of specific directions based on her findings.

Referral to Chief Justice and Implications

The final operative part of the judgment, signed by both judges, states: "In light of the difference of opinion that has arisen on the legal issue, place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders."

This split verdict means that the contentious issues surrounding Thiruparankundram Hill remain unresolved. The referral to the Chief Justice will likely lead to the constitution of a larger bench to hear the matter afresh or for the Chief Justice to assign it to another bench. Until a final decision is reached, the legal status of the disputed practices and claims remains in limbo, underscoring the complexities of managing shared religious and heritage spaces in India. The authorities will continue to focus on maintaining peace and public order at the site.