Thiruparakundram Hill Row | After Split Verdict, Third Madras High Court Judge Rules Against Animal Sacrifice At Dargah

The third judge of the Madras High Court, appointed to resolve the split verdict in connection with pleas against animal sacrifice at the Thiruparakundram Hills, on Friday, ruled against allowing such practice at the hills. While Justice Nisha Banu had refused to interfere with the practice of animal sacrifice, Justice S Srimathy had taken a different view and said that the Dargah should approach the civil court to establish their right to practice the Kandoori animal sacrifice and prayers during Ramzan, Bakrid and other Islamic festivals. Justice R Vijayakumar, who was appointed after the split verdict by a bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice S Srimathy, concurred with the views taken by Justice S Srimathy and noted that the practice of animal sacrifice was not being performed in all dargahs/mosques and was thus, not an essential religious practice to claim protection under Article 25 of the Constitution “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,” the court noted. “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,” the court further observed. The court also observed that when there were claims and counter claims with respect to the performance of animal sacrifice at the temple, the parties should approach the competent civil court to establish the same. The court also pointed out that as per a communication addressed by the Archaeological Survey of India Department, the Pancha Pandava beds on the hills and the rock cut cave at Tiruparakundram are protected monuments. The court thus noted that even if it was assumed that Dhargah Administration was the owner of the Sikkanthar Mosque, it could not be permitted to perform any animal sacrifice without the permission of the ASI Department and any such permission would be violative of the ASI Act. The court thus noted that there was a statutory bar against animal sacrifice at the hills. With respect to the plea seeking to prevent renaming the hills as Sikkandar Malai, while Justice Banu had dismissed the plea noting that there was no violation of rights, Justice Srimathy had held that the hills had been referred to as Thiruparakundram Hills even in the order of the civil court in 1920 and thus, calling the hills as Sikkandar Malai would be mischievous and would be an attempt to change the name of the hills. Justice Vijayakumar against sided with Justice Srimathy and noted that out of the 170 acres of the hills, only 33 cents of the Nellithope area and few cents of the dargah belonged to the Dargah administrators. The judge held that when the entire Thiruparakunadram Hills had been declared to be the property of the Devasthanamm (as per the order of the civil court in 1920) the entire hills could not be renamed as Sikkandar Malai merely because a miniscule title had been declared to the Mohammedans. With respect to the petitioner against the conduct of prayers at the Nellithope, the judge sided with the view taken by Justice Banu, in favour of allowing prayers. Though Justice Srimathy noted that the persons offering prayers at the dargah would be occupying the pathway leading to the Kasi Vishwanathar Temple and the same could not be allowed, the third judge held that overcrowding could not be a ground for denying rights to offer prayers. The judge thus held that Mohammedans could be permitted to offer prayers in the Nellithoppu area during Ramzan and Bakrid festival days alone, subject to condition that they do not defile or spoil the traditional footsteps leading to the temple. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. G. Karthikeyan Senior Counsel for Mr. M. Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy Counsel for Respondent: Mr J. Ravindran Addl. Advocate General Assisted by Mr S. R. A. Ramachandran, Additional Government Pleader, Mr Veera.Kathiravan Additional Advocate General Assisted by S. Ravi, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. R. Shanmuga Sundaram, Senior Counsel Assisted by Mr. S. Manohar Standing Counsel, Mr. S. Vanchinathan Case Title: S Paramasivam v. The District Collector and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 348 Case No: W.P.(MD)Nos.2678 of 2025 and batchClick Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Thiruparakundram Hill Row | After Split Verdict, Third Madras High Court Judge Rules Against Animal Sacrifice At Dargah

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Thiruparakundram Hill Row | After Split Verdict, Third Madras High Court Judge Rules Against Animal Sacrifice At Dargah

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers