Animal Sacrifice On Thiruparankundram Hill Not Permissible: Madras High Court Confirms It As Protected Monument
The Madras High Court observed that if the hillock is named as Sikkandar Malai, it would hurt the sentiments of the Hindu devotees who are performing Giri Pradakshinam.
Thiruparankundram Temple
While confirming Thiruparankundram Hill as protected monument, the Madras High Court has held that there is a statutory bar on animal sacrifice over the same.
The Madurai Bench was deciding the Writ Petitions relating to the issue involving allegations of animal sacrifice by Jamath Members of Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah on Thiruparankundram Hill.
Earlier, the Division Bench had delivered a split verdict over this issue and hence, the matter was placed before the Chief Justice for nominating the third Judge.
A Single Bench of Justice R. Vijayakumar observed, “… even assuming that the Dhargah Administration is the owner of the Sikkanthar Mosque and Nellithoppu area, in the light of Rule 8 of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959, the Dhargah Administration cannot be permitted to perform any animal sacrifice without the permission of the Archaeological Survey of India Department. Any such permission would be in violation of ASI Act. Therefore, as on today, there is a statutory bar against the traditional practice of animal sacrifice over the Thiruparankundram Hillock.”
The Bench said that so far, the revenue officials have not co-operated with the ASI (Archaeological Survey of India) Department for demarcating the protected monuments area which spreads over more than 172 acres in the hillock which houses two protected monuments.
Senior Advocate R. Shanmuga Sundaram, Advocates S. Manohar, and Niranjan S. Kumar appeared for the Petitioners, while Senior Advocates Isaac Mohanlal, T. Lajapathy Roy, and Advocate S. Vanchinathan appeared for the Respondents.
Background
A Division Bench comprising Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice S. Srimathy had divergent opinions with respect to this issue. Two Writ Petitions were dismissed by the Bench but the other three Petitions led to the split verdict. Justice Banu had dismissed the same while Justice Srimathy allowed the same. Hence, these Writ Petitions were listed before the Single Judge. The first Petition sought direction to the Respondents to prevent performing any form of animal sacrifice in entire Thiruparankundram Hill and also from serving food prepared by animal sacrifice based on January 2025 representation.
The second Petition sought prohibition over illegal usage of the name of Thiruparankundram Temple Hillock as Sikkandar Malai and to prohibit any kind of animal sacrifice in any manner by anybody upon the hill area with a view to preserve and protect the sacred and holiness of the Hillock Thiruparankundram. Lastly, the third Petition sought necessary action against the conduct of prayer or any other gathering in Nellithoppu at Arulmighu Subramaniaswamy Thirukovil at Thirupparankundram, Madurai District.
Court’s Observations
First Issue: Name of the Hillock
The High Court in view of this issue, noted, “I am inclined to concur with the views of the Hon'ble Mrs.Justice S.Srimathy. … two notifications clearly indicate the presence of Sikkandar Mosque and the name of the hill as Thiruparankundram rock. There is no reference about the Thirupparankundram Hill as Sikkandar Malai.”
The Court said that Thiruparankundram Devasthanam has been declared to be the owner and in possession of whole of Thiruparankundram hill and the Giriveethi except the occupied lands, Nellithoppu including new Mandapam, the flight of steps leading from Nellithoppu up to the Mosque on the top of the rock on which the Mosque and the flag staff of the Mohammedans stand.
“… it is clear that out of more than 170 acres except 33 cents of Nellithoppu area and few cents of Dhargah, the rest of the hill belongs to the Temple Devasthanam. 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 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”, it remarked.
The Court was of the view that the entire hillock is treated as Lord Siva and Giri Pradakshinam is being performed by Hindu devotees and if the same is named as Sikkandar Malai, it would hurt the sentiments of the Hindu devotees who are performing Giri Pradakshinam.
“The respondents in the writ petitions have heavily relied upon certain District Gazetteers. When the civil Court has specifically pointed out that in Paragraph No.16 that even before the advent of Prophet in Arabia, the Hindus regarded the hill as holy, relying upon the records created by Britishers would not be of any assistance. The academic publications were also referred and it is settled position of law that they cannot be relied upon for naming a particular place or a hill, unless there are proper Government records”, it added.
Second Issue: Animal Sacrifice
The Court concurred with the findings of Justice Srimathy with respect to this issue also. It said that the practice of animal sacrifice is being performed by Hindu Community members also in the Dhargah premises and therefore, it is clear that even as per case of the Dhargah Administration, the practice of animal sacrifice at the Dhargah premises is not restricted to Muslim community members alone.
“The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Revenue Officials and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Waqf Board extensively relied upon Quranic principles to impress upon the Court that animal sacrifice is not only part and parcel of Islamic religion but it is an essential part of the said religion. It was further contended that when the title to certain pockets over the Thiruparankundram hill have been declared by the civil Court and confirmed by the Privy Council, the devotees of the other religion cannot dictate terms and impose upon their own sentiments upon the other religion, that too within their own premises”, it further noted.
The Court reiterated that unless a particular religious practice is an essential religious practice, it is not protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and even as per the admitted case of the Waqf Board, the practice of animal sacrifice is not followed in all the Mosques/Dargahs.
“That apart, in the present case, the said practice is not claimed to be the exclusive practice of Mohammedans in Sikkandar Dargah. In such circumstances, the invocation of Article 25 of Constitution of India is not legally sustainable”, it held.
The Court enunciated that 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.
“There cannot be in any dispute that the animal sacrifice is being performed only in some of the Dhargahs/Mosques and not in all the Mosques or Dhargahs. In such circumstances, it is for Dhargah authority to establish the fact that such a customary practices are prevalent in Sikkandar Mosque”, it also remarked.
Moreover, the Court said that the reliance cannot be placed upon the practice being followed in certain temples, especially in the light of the fact that the Dhargah is located on the top of the hillock, which is considered to be a God by itself by the Hindu devotees and unless positive evidence is let in, to establish such a customary practice is prevailing from time immemorial, the practices followed in other temples, cannot be cited as a reason.
“It is settled position of law that a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C ( new Section 183 of BNSS), 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. Such an untested statement cannot be relied upon to establish an alleged customary practice said to have been followed from time immemorial. Unless the civil Court categorically decides the issue, the statement cannot be of any assistance to either of the parties”, it further reiterated.
Third Issue: Conduct of prayers/Gathering at Nellithoppu
With regard to this issue, the Court observed that if a greater number of people are permitted to offer prayer, the crowd is likely to occupy the pathway leading to the Kasi Vishwanathar Temple and the traditional steps leading up to the Nellithoppu area, which has been declared in favour of the temple Devasthanam.
“However, the said over-crowding cannot be a ground for denying the right to offer prayers within the Nellithoppu area, provided it does not obstruct the pathway to the devotees and the traditional steps leading up to the Nellithoppu area”, it added.
The Court clarified that in the Nellithoppu area, any animal sacrifice, cooking, carrying or serving of any nov-vegetarian food cannot be permitted until a decision is rendered by a competent Civil Court with regard to the customary practice of animal sacrifice upon the Thiruparankundram Hillock.
“… the temple Devasthanam has been declared to be the absolute owner of the traditional footsteps leading up to Nellithoppu area. The Mohammedans are only having the right of usage over the said pathway. In such circumstances, they cannot use the said pathway for any other purpose other than to reach Nellithoppu area”, it noted.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the Mohammedans could be permitted to offer their prayers in Nellithoppu area during Ramzan and Bakrid festival days alone, subject to the conditions and they will not defile or spoil the traditional footsteps.
Accordingly, the High Court decided the issue and answered the referred questions.
Cause Title- S. Paramasivam v. The District Collector & Ors. (Case Number: W.P.(MD)Nos.2678 of 2025 and batch)
