In a landmark judgment, Justice R. Vijayakumar of the Madras High Court, acting as the third judge, held that animal sacrifice is not permissible on Thiruparankundram Hill. The decision resolves a long-standing dispute over religious practices, nomenclature, and prayer rights at the hill, which houses both the Subramaniya Swamy Temple and the Sikandar Badusha Dargah.
The matter had previously generated a split verdict by a division bench comprising Justices J. Nisha Banu and S. Srimathy. Justice Banu had declined to prohibit animal sacrifices, reasoning that the practice formed part of historical religious tradition, and emphasizing the need to maintain communal harmony. In contrast, Justice Srimathy held that there was insufficient evidence to treat animal sacrifice as an established religious practice and directed that it be restrained unless judicially proven.
As the third judge, Justice Vijayakumar examined documentary records, historical materials, and statutory provisions. He affirmed that the hill should continue to be called Thiruparankundram Hill, rejecting efforts to rename it “Sikkandar Malai” or “Samanar Kundru.” He noted revenue and archaeological records, including Gazette notifications from 1908 and 1923 declaring the hill as protected under the Archaeological Survey of India, which referred to it by its traditional name.
On the issue of animal sacrifice, Justice Vijayakumar held that no documentary proof establishes the ritual as a long-standing or essential religious practice at the Dargah. He said that even if the Dargah administration claims animal sacrifice is customary, that practice must first be judicially established in a court of competent jurisdiction. Pending such a determination, he enjoined all animal sacrifices, cooking, and serving of non-vegetarian food anywhere on the hill.
Regarding the rights of Muslims to offer prayers in the Nellithoppu area (a small parcel of land midway on the hill reserved for the Dargah), the court struck a balance. It permitted Muslim prayers during Ramadan and Bakrid, subject to conditions, and affirmed that the 33-cent Nellithoppu area belongs to the Muslim community. However, it clarified that the temple’s traditional steps leading to Kasi Vishwanathar Temple and the Dargah must not be obstructed, and no cooking, animal sacrifice, or non-vegetarian food should be permitted there until a civil court adjudicates the matter.
This third-judge verdict provides clarity on multiple fronts: it preserves the hill’s name, prohibits animal sacrifice until judicial proof is furnished, and delineates prayer rights in the contested Nellithoppu zone. The judgment underscores the view that religious practices affecting shared spaces must be supported by evidence and subject to legal oversight rather than carried on merely by tradition or assertion.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.