Thiruparankundram temple-dargah case: Madras HC says no animal sacrifices at sacred hillock or name-change

The Madras High Court has ruled against permitting ritual animal sacrifices at the Sikkander Dargah located on the sacred Thiruparankundram hillock which also houses the Hindu rock-cut cave temple Arulmigu Subramaniya Swami Temple [S Paramasivam v. District Collector and connected cases].

A tie-breaker judge, Justice R Vijaykumar gave his verdict in the matter yesterday, after two judges - Justices J Nisha Banu and S Srimathy - disagreed in June on whether such animal sacrifices should be permitted at the hillock.

In the earlier split verdict, Justice Nisha Banu had noted that animal sacrifices are carried out not just in Muslim dargahs but also in several Hindu temples across India. Therefore, she had opined that it may not be right to selectively ban it at the hillock.

The tie-breaker judge, Justice Vijaykumar, however, observed that just because some temples or mosques carry out animal sacrifices, it would not imply that such practices are customary in other mosques or temples.

He concluded that unless the shrine's management proves in a civil suit that such animal sacrifices are established customary practices at the hillock, the same cannot be permitted.

"It is for Dhargah authority to establish the fact that such a customary practices are prevalent in Sikkandar Mosque .... 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. 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 (to permit animal sacrifices at Thiruparankundram)," the order said.

The tie-breaker judge also noted that there were protected monuments in the area, which meant that the Archeological Survey of India's (ASI) permission was required before any animal sacrifice could be conducted there.

"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," Justice Vijaykumar said.

Hillock can't be renamed "Sikkandar Malai"

Two other contentious issues arose in the case. One concerned the name of the hillock. Some petitioners argued that there have been mischievous attempts to rename the hill 'Sikkandar Malai' (after the saint in whose honour the dargah/ shrine was built). They sought action against any such move.

In the earlier split verdict, Justice Nisha Banu had dismissed such a plea. She observed that the Thiruparankundram Hill is not vested with any individual or group but it is vested with Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Temple. She found that there was nothing on record to indicate that the temple's rights were violated so as to pass any orders on the petition.

On the other hand, Justice Srimathy found that there were civil court and revenue records which clearly referred to the hillock as Thiruparankundram.

She held that calling the said hill "Sikkandar Malai" was definitely mischievous and an attempt to change the name of the Thiruparankundram hillock.

The tie-breaker judge, Justice Vijaykumar expressed agreement with Justice Srimathy's view. He noted that there were notifications issued by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) which referred to the hillock as Thirupparankundram hill.

"There is no reference about the Thirupparankundram Hill as Sikkandar Malai," he observed.

He also referred to an earlier Privy Council decision, in which it was held that out of the 177-acre hillock, the dargah only held rights to about 33 cents of the hillock's Nellithope area and a few additional cents where the shrine was built. The rest of the hill belongs to the Temple Devasthanam. In such a scenario, Justice Vijaykumar questioned how the dargah could claim that the hillock should be named after it.

"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 the 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," Justice Vijaykumar said.

He added that renaming the hillock in such circumstances would also hurt Hindu sentiments.

"If it is named as Sikkandar Malai, the same would certainly hurt the sentiments of the Hindu devotees who are performing Giri Pradakshinam," the ruling said.

On conduct of Muslim prayers at Nellithope area

The remaining issue was whether Muslims can offer prayers at the Nellithope area of the hillock.

Some of the petitioners before the Court had raised concerns that the conduct of such prayers was also leading to the area being littered with plastic waste and non-vegetarian food, thereby affecting its sanctity. They argued that allowing such prayers would also lead to overcrowding in the area, thereby affecting Hindu devotees as well, who have to cross this area to reach the nearby Kasi Vishwanathar Temple. These petitioners argued that the conduct of such prayers by Muslims was a new practice, not a customary one, and urged the Court to halt the same.

The tie-breaker judge has, however, ruled that these prayers can continue during Ramzan and Bakrid, provided no hindrance is caused to Hindu devotees who may have to cross the area to reach the nearby temple.

The Court concluded:

"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 ... However, in the Nellithoppu area any animal sacrifice, cooking, carrying or serving of any non-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. In fact, 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 ... The Mohammedans could be permitted to offer their prayers in Nellithoppu area during Ramzan and Bakrid festival days alone, subject to the above said conditions and they will not defile or spoil the traditional footsteps."

[Read Judgment]