Madras High Court: In a series of petitions primarily seeking directions to prevent the respondents (Sikandar Badusha Avuliah Dargah, Thiruparankundram) from performing any form of animal sacrifice in entire Thiruparankundram Hill at any point of time from and also from serving food prepared by animal sacrifice; the division bench of J. Nisha Banu* and S. Srimathy**, JJ., delivered a split verdict on the issue.
While J. Nisha Banu, J., upheld the practice of animal sacrifice, arguing primacy of historical legal decrees, emphasizing strict compliance to avoid any communal conflict. She stressed that no statutory prohibition currently exists against such rituals in Tamil Nadu.
On the other hand, S. Srimathy, J., gave a differing opinion focusing on evidentiary standards. She opined that held due to lack of documentation or any testimony supporting the Dargah’s claims, it could not be established that animal sacrifice was an established religious custom there. Hence, directed the dargah to approach the civil court for the remedy.
Given the difference of opinion in the judgment on the legal issue, the matter was referred to the Chief Justice of Madras High Court for appropriate orders.
Background
8th century’s famous Sri Arulmugu Subramaniya Swamy Temple at Tiruparankundram is considered as one of the first Arupadai veedu of Lord Murugan. It was alleged that in January, 2025 a pamphlet was issue by the Sikkandar Badusha Dargah, located on the southern side of the hill, announcing plans to conduct animal sacrifice as part of the community festival, also serving the same for consumption. This announcement shocked the residents and devotees of other religious faiths living in that area, as the hill had always maintained vegetarian and non-violent practices, and that there has been no historical precedent of animal sacrifice either within the temple complex or anywhere on the hill.
It was also alleged that these pamphlets referred to the hill as ‘Sikkandar Malai,’ which seemed like an attempt to alter the religious and historical identity of the site, thereby disturbing communal harmony. Also, some unauthorized activities including the painting of ancient Jain caves and temple signboards with green paint, posed a threat to the archaeological and religious sanctity of the area.
Justice Nisha Banu’s opinion
Perusing the historical and religious significance of the Tiruparankundram Hills; long litigation history between the parties since 1917 and the present petitions seeking to prevent the Dargah authorities from conducting animal sacrifice, Justice Banu noted that the Civil Court had not only recognised the rights of both the parties with regard to the places of the worship in the Hills but also has defined the rights, in an elaborate judgment.
It was noted that given that ritual animal sacrifices are traditionally performed in multiple Hindu temples across the Madurai region, a blanket prohibition would amount to discriminatory enforcement. Animal Sacrifice, being an established religious practice, is observed not only in the Dargah but also in several hindu Temples across the country, and therefore the same cannot be selectively banned.
She also noteed that the Tamil Nadu Animals and Birds Sacrifices Prohibition Act, 1950 was repealed in 2004 by Tamil Nadu Act 20 of 2004. Therefore, there is no statutory bar against the traditional practice of animal sacrifice at religious places in Tamil Nadu.
Justice Banu further stated that the Dargah was located on the southern side peak of the Thirupparankundram Hill, while the Subramaniya Swamy Temple and Kasi Viswanathar Temple were situated at different locations. Thus, no religious practices of one community impinges upon the scared spaces of another.
She also relied on Article 25 of the Constitution, that confers the right to freedom of religion which includes “practice”, and the same can only be interfered by a law enacted under Article 25(2). Therefore, Justice Banu stated that in the absence of any law prohibiting animal sacrifice, which is a part of religious practice, there cannot be any order of the Court restraining such activity.
“Rituals, observances, ceremonies and mode of worship are regarded as integral parts of religion, which will even extend to matters of food and dress and no outside authority has any jurisdiction to interfere with such practises”.
Justice Banu further opined that the Thiruparankundram Hill, insofar as the Hindus are concerned and subject to the recognised rights of the Mohammedans, is not vested with any individual or any particular group or association of people, but is vested with Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Thiruparankundram. There were no allegations of violation of the rights of the Temple in respect of the Thiruparankundram Hills, as such rights have been recognised and confirmed by the Civil Courts.
Justice Banu however, deemed it fit to direct the authorities concerned, in order to maintain public peace, harmony and tranquility, to take firm and immediate steps against persons/organisation who attempt to disrupt the same. Accordingly, she dismissed the writ petitions. Justice S. Srimathy’s opinion
Justice S. Srimathy however gave a disagreeing opinion. She undertook a comprehensive analysis of historical decrees, religious practices, and civic concerns raised in several writ petitions.
On the issue of the name of the hill, Srimathy, J., noted that all the revenue records were in the name of ‘Tiruparankundram Hill’.
Justice Srimathy opined that the issuance of pamphlets using altered name of the Tiruparankundram Hill and defacement of Jain caves and temple signboards with green paint were condemned as deliberate attempts to provoke communal unrest. She further found these attempts to be mischievous and malicious; and hence concluded that the name of hill cannot be changed to ‘Samanar Kundru’ or ‘Sikkandar Malai’. The respondents were directed to take legal action against those responsible for these acts. Accordingly, the prayer to change the name as Samanar Kundru was rejected resulting in dismissal of the petition.
Further on the issue of animal sacrifice, Justice Srimathy found no documentary evidence that Kandoori animal sacrifice was carried at hill area. She noted that the Dargah failed to produce any evidence or witness testimony to establish that such sacrifices were part of their long-standing tradition. The environment surrounding the temple, where meat stalls are absent within a 300-meter radius and marriage halls prohibit non-vegetarian food, reinforced that the animal sacrifice was not a recognized or accepted practice on the hill.
Furthermore,, Justice Srimathy opined that there was no such practice of Kanthoori animal sacrifice in Sikkandar Dargah. If at all they practice, the dargah may approach appropriate civil court to establish such practice. . She further acknowledged the sanctity of religious festival called Santhanakoodu at the Dargah. Justice Srimathy further stated that any renovations must be approved by the Archaeological Department and directed a full survey of the hill’s monuments and religious structures to be completed within one year.
[M. Kannan v. The District Collector, W.P.(MD)Nos.2277, 3703 & 2678 of 2025, 15565 & 23198 of 2023 and 8523/2017 , decided on 24-6-2025]
*Opinion by Justice J. Nisha Banu
**Disagreeing opinion by Justice S. Srimathy
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiff: Niranjan S.Kumar, N. Sundaresan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Veera Kathiravan, S.Manohar, S.Ravi, Isaac Mohanlal, P. Thilak Kumar, Advocates.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
