© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has prohibited the ritual of animal sacrifice at the Sikandar Badusha Dargah, located atop the Thiruparankundram Hill in Madurai. The court’s latest decision was handed down by Justice R. Vijayakumar, who was appointed as a third judge after a two-judge Bench delivered a split verdict in June 2025.
The petitions before the court concerned whether the dargah could continue the practice of animal sacrifice during its annual festival and if such practices are protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. The ruling settles the dispute before the temple and dargah atop a hill, which is a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, where religious customs are subject to statutory regulation.
The Dargah sits atop the same hill, near a network of temples and caves. Historical decrees record that the steps leading up to it form part of the pathway to the Kasi Viswanathar Temple at its peak. For decades, both religious communities used the area without major dispute.
The recent conflict began when a pamphlet circulated by the Dargah trustees announced a “Samabandhi Feast 2025,” inviting people to a festival that included the slaughter of goats and hens “to promote communal harmony.” The flyer referred to the hill as Sikkandar Malai.
The hill, however, is known by several names across communities—“Skanda Malai” among Hindus, “Sikkandar Malai” among Muslims, and “Samanar Kundru” among Jains. Locals refer to it by its historical name, “Thiruparankundram Hill.”
Following the pamphlet, Hindu groups objected to what they saw as the performance of animal sacrifice on sacred ground. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (HR&CE) filed a representation before the district authorities, arguing that the practice would violate the sanctity of the hill.
The District Collector’s report acknowledged that animal sacrifice formed part of worship in some religious contexts, including certain temples, but did not conclusively establish that it was an essential practice at the Dargah. The disagreement soon reached the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
The dispute over Thiruparankundram Hill is not new. It dates back more than a century.
In 1920, the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Thiruparankundram, sought a declaration of ownership over the entire hill after the Dargah attempted to build a small mandapam. The trial court ruled in 1923 that the Temple owned almost the entire hill, except for about 33 cents of land at Nellithoppu, where the mosque and flagstaff of the Dargah stand.
The Dargah appealed, but in 1931, the Privy Council, then the highest judicial authority, confirmed that the Temple had held the hill “from time immemorial.”
Subsequent cases reinforced this position. In 1958, the court prohibited quarrying outside the Dargah’s limited area; in 2011, it restrained any new construction or lighting without the Temple’s permission; later petitions over tourism schemes and flag installations were also dismissed.
Over a century, courts have consistently upheld the Temple’s title over the hill, while recognising the Dargah’s rights only within its 33-cent plot.
The new round of petitions before the High Court sought a ban on animal sacrifice at the Dargah and an injunction against using “Sikkandar Malai” to describe the hill. Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice S. Srimathy, who heard the case together, reached opposite conclusions.
Justice Banu dismissed the petitions, noting that animal sacrifice was practised in various religious institutions in the region and “cannot be selectively banned.” She noted that “a blanket prohibition would amount to discriminatory enforcement.” The Dargah, she observed, stood on a distinct part of the hill, separate from the temple premises.
Citing Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freely practise and profess religion, she held that “in the absence of any law prohibiting animal sacrifice, which is a part of religious practice, there cannot be any order by this court restraining such activity.” Rituals and ceremonies, she said, “extend to matters of food and dress, and no outside authority has any jurisdiction to interfere with such practices.”
Justice Srimathy, however, took the opposite view. She found that the practice of animal sacrifice at the Dargah was neither supported by historical nor legal records. Referring to the 1920 civil decree and other administrative orders, she held that the pamphlet “stating slaughtering of goat and chicken in Sikkandar Dargah is definitely mischievous and malicious,” and that “the same would clearly lead to communal disharmony.”
She observed that the Dargah could approach a civil court to prove any claim of customary practice.
On the naming issue, Justice Banu again dismissed the petition, saying there was no legal bar to calling the hill “Sikkandar Malai.” Justice Srimathy, by contrast, ruled that the name could not be changed, holding that “the pamphlets issued by persons claiming to be part of the Madurai Muslim United Jamath and Political Party Organisation were mischievous and an attempt to change the name of the hill.”
On the question of gatherings and prayers in Nellithoppu, Justice Banu cited earlier decrees, particularly the 1920 judgment and subsequent execution proceedings, that had already recognised the Dargah community’s right to worship there.
Justice Srimathy disagreed. She held that recent gatherings drew large crowds and obstructed access to temple pathways, contrary to earlier orders. “The Dargah was not having any such practice to conduct prayer during Ramzan, Bakrith or any other Islamic festival in the Dargah. And it is a new practice and the same cannot be allowed, “ she noted.
Given the divergence, the case was referred to Justice R. Vijayakumar as a third judge to resolve the split.
Justice Vijayakumar agreed with Justice Srimathy’s opinion on both the animal sacrifice and naming issues, and with Justice Banu on the limited right to prayer at Nellithoppu.
On the question of animal sacrifice, the judge noted that while the Dargah and a witness described as a goat skinner claimed the practice had existed for long, “reliance cannot be placed upon the practice being followed in certain temples, especially in the light of the fact that the Dargah is located on the top of the hillock, which is considered to be a God by itself by the Hindu devotees.” He added that “unless positive evidence is let in to establish such a customary practice prevailing from time immemorial, the practices followed in other temples cannot be cited as a reason.”
The Revenue and Police Officers examined a goat skinner who claimed that his father had historically performed the work of goat skinning and dressing and that he assisted his father in this work. The RPO heavily relied on this statement, as “people of other religions would come to the dargah for goat skinning and dressing, and would consume the food cooked there.” The judge rejected the testimony evidence, stating that “Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not have any evidentiary value and it is not a substantial evidence and it can be used only to corroborate or contradict a witness on a later point of time.”
Referring to the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, Justice Vijayakumar observed that the entire hill is a protected monument. Rule 8 of the ASI Rules prohibits bringing animals into such sites or cooking and serving food within them, unless specifically permitted. The court therefore restrained the practice of animal sacrifice and directed the Dargah to approach a civil court if it wished to establish that the practice existed before the 1920 decree. Quarrying of the hill was also expressly prohibited.
On the naming issue, the judgment aligned with the earlier civil decree and ASI records, holding that the site must continue to be called Thiruparankundram Hill, and “shall not be called either as Sikkandar Malai or as Samanar Kundru.”
On prayers at Nellithoppu, Justice Vijayakumar concurred with Justice Banu. He acknowledged that the 33 cents of land at Nellithoppu belonged to the Dargah and that this ownership was undisputed. “The Mohammedans,” the judgment said, “could be permitted to offer their prayers in Nellithoppu area during Ramzan and Bakrid festival days alone… and they will not defile or spoil the traditional footsteps.”
The court restricted the gatherings to the Nellithoppu area, prohibited the carrying or serving of non-vegetarian food, and barred any obstruction of the pathway used by temple devotees. It also directed the Archaeological Department to conduct a survey of the entire hill and submit a report within a year.
