Temple-Dargah Dispute: Madras HC Upholds Thiruparankundram Hill’s Name, Bars Animal Sacrifice

Justice R. Vijayakumar, acting as third judge after a split verdict between Justices J. Nisha Banu and S. Srimathy, delivered the final verdict on October 10 in three linked writ petitions filed by S. Paramasivam, M. Kannan @ Solai Kannan, and A.P. Ramalingam of Hindu Makkal Katchi.

The petitioners had sought a complete ban on animal sacrifice and Muslim prayers on the hill, asserting that the Thiruparankundram Hillock which is home to the Arulmighu Subramania Swamy Temple, was a sacred Hindu site and that the practice of Kandoori (animal sacrifice) at the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah defiled its religious sanctity.

Court noted that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) had declared about 172 acres of the hillock as a protected monument through gazette notifications issued in 1908 and 1923. Under Rule 8 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959, bringing animals for any purpose or cooking and consuming food on the protected site is prohibited without permission from ASI.

Justice Vijayakumar held that even if a customary practice of animal sacrifice was claimed, it could not be allowed until a competent civil court affirmed such a custom. Accordingly, he prohibited any form of animal sacrifice, cooking, or serving of non-vegetarian food in the Nellithoppu area until further orders.

Citing historical records, the judge observed that the hill has always been officially known as Thiruparankundram Hill, and rebranding it as Sikkandar Malai was a “mischievous attempt to change its identity".

He referred to a 1920 civil court decree and the 1931 Privy Council decision (AIR 1931 PC 212) confirming that the Arulmighu Subramania Swamy Temple Devasthanam is the rightful owner of the hill except for a 33-cent portion in Nellithoppu belonging to the Dargah.

"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," court said. 

It stressed that merely because the title had been declared in favour of Mohammedans to a minuscule part of the said hill, it could not be contended that the entire hill should be named after the Mosque/Dhargah.

On the issue of prayers at Nellithoppu, the court balanced the rights of both communities. It held that Muslims could offer prayers in the 33-cent Nellithoppu area only on Ramzan and Bakrid, ensuring that the pathway and traditional steps owned by the temple are not defiled or blocked. Justice Vijayakumar also emphasised that no new religious practice could be introduced without civil court recognition.

Concluding the case, Justice Vijayakumar concurred with Justice Srimathy’s view in allowing two petitions (W.Ps. 2277 and 2678 of 2025) and with Justice Nisha Banu’s view in dismissing W.P. 15565 of 2023.

Court thus banned animal sacrifice on the hill, affirmed the temple’s ownership over the hillock, and upheld limited rights for Muslims to pray during festival occasions alone. No order was made as to costs.

Case Title: S.Paramasivam vs. The District Collector, Madurai District and Others

Order Date: October 10, 2025

Bench: Justice R. Vijayakumar