Supreme Court upholds Madras High Court restrictions on Muslim prayers at Thiruparankundram Hill

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to interfere with a Madras High Court ruling that placed restrictions on Muslims offering prayers at the Nellithoppu area of the Thiruparankundram Hill except during Ramzan and Bakrid [M Imam Hussain v. The Secretary to Government & Ors].

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale dismissed a petition filed by Advocate Prashant Bhushan challenging the part of the Madras High Court ruling that restricted Muslim prayers at the hilltop.

While doing so, the Court remarked that the Madras High Court was indeed "very balanced" in its approach.

During the hearing, Bhushan argued that the High Court had gone too far in confining prayers to only two occasions in the year. He contended that the Nellithoppu area belonged to the Muslim community and that there had never been any law and order problem arising out of prayers being offered there.

Bhushan pressed that there was no justification to deny Muslims the right to pray on land that belonged to them, so long as conditions were imposed to ensure that no nuisance was caused. He argued that such safeguards could always be enforced without cutting down the right itself.

The Court however, remained unmoved and dismissed the plea.

The controversy traces back to the Thiruparankundram hillock in Madurai, which houses the ancient Arulmigu Subramaniya Swami Temple as well as the Sikkander Dargah at the Nellithoppu area. Multiple petitions were filed before the Madras High Court raising concerns over religious practices at the hillock.

Three major issues came up before the High Court: the conduct of animal sacrifice at the dargah, attempts to refer to the hillock as “Sikkandar Malai,” and the extent to which Muslim prayers could be offered at the Nellithoppu area.

A Division Bench initially delivered a split verdict. While one judge took the view that animal sacrifice could not be selectively banned, the other held that such practices could not be permitted without proof of long-standing custom. Owing to this difference, the matter was placed before a third, tie-breaker judge.

The tie-breaker judge ruled that animal sacrifice could not be permitted at the hillock unless the dargah authorities established, in a civil court, that it was a customary practice specific to the site. The judge also noted that the presence of protected monuments in the area meant that permission from the Archaeological Survey of India would be mandatory, creating a statutory bar on such practices.

On the question of renaming the hillock, the High Court rejected any attempt to call it “Sikkandar Malai,” noting that official records, ASI notifications and earlier decisions consistently referred to it as Thiruparankundram. The Court observed that the dargah’s rights extended only to a small portion of the hillock and that renaming the entire hill would be misleading and hurt Hindu sentiments.

The final issue concerned Muslim prayers at the Nellithoppu area. Some petitioners had complained that such gatherings led to overcrowding, littering and the presence of non-vegetarian food, affecting the sanctity of the hillock and inconveniencing Hindu devotees who used the same pathway to reach nearby temples.

The High Court held that overcrowding by itself could not be a ground to deny prayers, but it imposed strict conditions. It ruled that prayers could continue at the Nellithoppu area during Ramzan and Bakrid, provided they did not obstruct pathways, cause nuisance, or involve animal sacrifice, cooking, or the carrying of non-vegetarian food.

It was this limited permission - allowing prayers only during two festivals - that was taken up to the Supreme Court.

With the Supreme Court now refusing to interfere and dismissing the plea, the Madras High Court’s arrangement continues to hold the field.

The petitioner was represented by Bhushan along with Advocate Shiyas Kr.

The respondents were represented by Advocates Veeraragavan, Shobha Ramamoorthy, V Ramakrishnan, Shilp Vinod, Gokulakrisnan, R Muthusrinithi and Supriya.

[Read Order]