Amid ongoing religious tensions, the Madras High Court has delivered a split verdict on the contentious issue of animal sacrifice at the Sikandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah, located atop the Thiruparankundram Hill in Madurai. However, the bench unanimously rejected a plea seeking to rename the historic hill, home to ancient Jain caves and prominent Hindu temples, including the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple and Kasi Viswanathar Temple.
The verdict, delivered on June 25 by a division bench comprising Justices J. Nisha Banu and S. Srimathy, came in response to a batch of petitions questioning both the legality of animal sacrifice at the Dargah and the claim made by some Muslim groups referring to the hill as “Sikandar Hills.” While both judges agreed that the hill should continue to be known by its traditional name, Thiruparankundram, they differed sharply on the question of whether animal sacrifice could continue as a protected religious practice.
Justice Nisha Banu upheld the practice, arguing it was historically rooted and observed not only by Muslims but also by other communities. She stressed that no statutory prohibition currently exists against such rituals in Tamil Nadu.
“It is evident that the animal sacrifice in the Dargah located at Thiruparankundram Hills has been prevalent as a religious practice from time immemorial… practised not only by Muslims but also by other communities,” she stated.
She added, “The Tamil Nadu Animals and Birds Sacrifices Prohibition Act, 1950, was repealed in 2004. Therefore, as on this date, there is no statutory bar against traditional animal sacrifice at religious places in Tamil Nadu.”
Justice Banu also noted that the Dargah and the two temples are situated in different areas on the hill, and their religious activities do not infringe upon one another. She affirmed that the hill is vested with the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, and no violation of its rights had been established in court.
Conversely, Justice S Srimathy took a stricter view, ruling that there was insufficient evidence to show that animal sacrifice was an established religious custom at the Dargah.
“The court is of the considered opinion that the RDO is right in concluding that the parties ought to approach the Civil Court to establish whether Kandoori animal sacrifice was an established practice at Sikkandar Dargah,” she stated.
“If at all they practice, the Dargah may approach the appropriate Civil Court to establish such practice.”
Justice Srimathy further instructed the Dargah to present evidence before the Civil Court to substantiate their claim that practices like Kandoori animal sacrifice and special prayers during Ramzan, Bakr-Eid, and other Islamic festivals were prevalent before a landmark 1920 civil suit (O.S.No.4 of 1920).
The legal dispute is rooted in a flare-up of tensions that began on December 27, 2023, when Syed Abu Dahir, a 53-year-old man from Malaiyadipatti, attempted to carry animals to the Dargah for sacrifice. Police detained Dahir’s family, prompting protests from nearly 20 local Islamists.
In January 2024, Muslim groups, including members of SDPI, the political arm of the now-banned Popular Front of India (PFI), staged demonstrations demanding permission for traditional animal sacrifice, asserting that the Dargah’s practices predated colonial rule. They also began referring to the hill as ‘Sikandar Hills’, a claim strongly opposed by Hindu groups.
Subsequently, communal tensions heightened after some unidentified miscreants painted ancient Jain caves in green, an act perceived as religious provocation. The administration later allowed Muslims to carry cooked meat for rituals at the Dargah but barred live animal sacrifice in consideration of the hill’s multi-faith religious landscape, including Jain and Hindu heritage.
In February 2024, Hindu organisations such as Hindu Munnani organised protests demanding an end to the practice of animal sacrifice on the sacred hill, arguing that it desecrated the sanctity of the ancient temples and violated ecological and cultural norms.
With the High Court’s split verdict, the matter is likely to be referred to a third judge for a conclusive ruling. The court’s rejection of the renaming plea has been seen as a win for Hindu organisations, while the divergent opinions on animal sacrifice have left the issue legally unresolved for now.
Comments