In a significant ruling in the Thiruparankundram hillock case that brings closure to a long-standing and sensitive dispute, Justice R. Vijayakumar, the third judge appointed to the case, has delivered a final verdict upholding key orders from two previous, divergent rulings — maintaining a ban on animal sacrifices while allowing Muslim prayers to continue in the Nellithope area. It also stated that Thiruparankundram should be called only by that name and not by any other name such as Sikkandar Hill.
Thiruparankundram, the first of the six abodes of Bhagwan Murugan in Madurai, houses the Bhagwan Subramania Swamy Temple and the so-called Sikandar Dargah. Of late, Muslims have been attempting to brand the hill as Sikkandar Hill and sought permission for animal sacrifice. In February, some Muslims who were going to perform animal sacrifice were halted following protests from Hindus. Meanwhile, Navas Kani, Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) MP from Ramanathapuram and other Muslim MLAs reportedly ate non-vegetarian biryani at the hilltop. Following this, Hindu Munnani and other outfits, with the court’s permission, held protests across the state.
A batch of petitions was filed by both sides. The case was transferred to a third judge after a two-judge bench of Justices J. Nisha Banu and S. Srimathi of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court delivered a split verdict on the various petitions.
A division bench of the Madurai High Court gave a split verdict in June 2025 on a batch of PILs, including one filed by Solai Kannan, questioning partisan issues such as calling Thiruparankundram Hills as Sikkandar Hill, permitting animal sacrifice atop the hill, where Delhi Sultanate representative Sikkandar, who ruled Madurai for a brief period, is said to be laid to rest at a dargah and another petition demanding that the hill be named Samanar (Jain) Malai.
The petition sought directions to the respondents to prevent them at any point in time from performing any form of animal sacrifice on the entire Thiruparankundram Hill, and also from serving food prepared by animal sacrifice, based on representations dated January 16 and 17, 2025.
Tamil Nadu: Hindu solidarity thwarts Islamization attempt at Thiruparankundram Murugan Temple in Madurai
Reports: TS Venkatesan#Madurai #ThiruparankundramMuruganMandirhttps://t.co/SXq4lD9mHy
— Organiser Weekly (@eOrganiser) February 4, 2025
Petitioner Y. Ozeer Khan, senior managing trustee of Hazarath Sulthan Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah and Mosque, sought a direction to the respondents not to interfere in the petitioner’s day-to-day administration of the Dargah and Mosque, and consequently to direct them not to prevent renovation and construction works at the said Dargah and Mosque situated at the top of Thiruparankundram Hill, Madurai, on the basis of the petitioner’s representation dated 17 August 2023. The division bench, which reserved orders on 30 April, delivered the 107-page judgement on 24 June.
Justice R. Vijayakumar, the third judge appointed to the case, delivered the final verdict on the contentious issues on October 10 (orders were reserved on 8 September). In his 78-page order, the judge dealt with the case in depth.
The judge said, “The case has been filed seeking a mandamus to prohibit calling Thiruparankundram Hillock as Sikkandar Malai… The Hon’ble Mrs Justice S. Srimathy has preferred to take a different view and relied upon the Civil Court judgment and decree in O.S. No. 4 of 1920, wherein the name of the hillock has been mentioned as Thiruparankundram Hill. According to Hon’ble Mrs Justice S. Srimathy, the revenue records reflect the name of the hill as Thiruparankundram Hill and therefore, calling the said hill as Sikkandar Malai is definitely mischievous and it is an attempt to change the name of Thiruparankundram Hillock. I am inclined to concur with the views of Mrs Justice S. Srimathy for the following reasons: (a) A Gazette notification was issued on 29.07.1908 by the Archaeological Survey of India under Section 3(1) of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904, declaring rock-cut caves and inscriptions on the southern side of Thiruparankundram rock (indicating that Sri Meenakshi Amman Temple Devasthanam is the owner) as a protected monument.”
Tamil Nadu HC split verdict: Hill to be ‘Thiruparankundram’, not ‘Sikkandar Malai’ or ‘Jain’s Cave’
By: TS Venkatesan#TamilNadu https://t.co/qxYhkmVCUG
— Organiser Weekly (@eOrganiser) June 25, 2025
It further said, “The extent of the said monument is 50 cents. Another notification was issued by the Archaeological Survey of India on 07.02.1923, wherein the cavern with Pancha Pandava beds on the western slope of the hills and similar beds behind the Sikkandar Mosque on the top of Thiruparankundram Hill were declared to be protected monuments under the same provisions of the Act. The extent, including Natham land, was shown as 172.2 acres. These two notifications clearly indicate the presence of Sikkandar Mosque and the name of the hill as Thiruparankundram rock. There is no reference about it. According to Justice S. Srimathy, the revenue records reflect the name of the hill as Thiruparankundram Hill, and therefore, calling the said hill as Sikkandar Malai is definitely mischievous and it is an attempt to change the name of Thiruparankundram Hillock.”
On the second issue of animal sacrifice, the court said, “Justice J. Nisha Banu in the order had relied upon the fact that in various Hindu temples animal sacrifice is being performed traditionally and therefore, the same cannot be selectively prohibited in the Dargah located on the top of the hill. She had relied upon the Peace Committee report dated 30.01.2025. She has further pointed out that the performance of animal sacrifice is being practised from time immemorial and there is no statutory bar. Thiruparankundram Hill as Sikkandar Malai. Justice S. Srimathy had relied upon the report of the RDO, wherein a compromise had been reached that as far as animal sacrifice is concerned, the parties have to approach the competent Civil Court. She has also recorded that there is no document to establish the past practice and that only when a pamphlet was issued advertising that on 8.01.2025 a Kandoori festival was going to be performed, it came to the knowledge of the devotees and the temple. Based upon the above said findings, the learned judge allowed the writ petition. I am inclined to concur with the findings of Justice S. Srimathy for the following reasons… There cannot be any dispute that animal sacrifice is being performed only in some of the Dargahs/Mosques and not in all. In such circumstances, it is for the Dargah authority to establish the fact that such customary practices are prevalent in Sikkandar Mosque… Two notifications issued by the Archaeological Survey of India on 29.07.1908 and 07.01.2023 declare 172.2 acres of land as protected monuments. In fact, it covers almost the entire hillock…”
It further said, “As per Rule 8(g) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules 1959, bringing any animal for any purpose other than the maintenance of monuments is a prohibited act. As per Rule 8(c) of the said Rules, cooking or consuming food is also prohibited except where specifically permitted…”
The court stated, “In such circumstances, even assuming that the Dargah Administration is the owner of the Sikkanthar Mosque and Nellithoppu area, in the light of Rule 8 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules 1959, the Dargah Administration cannot be permitted to perform any animal sacrifice without the permission of the Archaeological Survey of India. Any such permission would be in violation of the ASI Act.”
On the third issue — the conduct of prayers/gathering at Nellithoppu — the court said, “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 the 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 the 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.”
The third judge’s order effectively upholds key orders from two previous, divergent rulings — maintaining a ban on animal sacrifices, status quo on the hill’s name as Thiruparankundram, while allowing Muslim prayers to continue in the Nellithope area.
Comments