Madras HC passes split verdict in Thiruparankundram temple & dargah issue
MADURAI: Two judges of a bench of the Madras High Court delivered a split verdict on Tuesday on the emotive issue of permitting animal sacrifices, prayers, and gatherings at the Sikandar Badusha Avuliya Dargah, revered by Muslims, located on the Thiruparankundram Hill in Madurai.
The hill is also home to the Thiruparankundram Murugan Temple, one of the six Aarupadaiveedu (sacred abodes) of Lord Murugan. The matter has now been placed before the Chief Justice of the HC for appropriate orders.
The bench comprising Justices J Nisha Banu and S Srimathy was hearing a batch of six petitions. While three petitions sought prohibition of animal sacrifice and prayers or other gatherings, two wanted directions for peaceful administration of the dargah and basic amenities like road, lights, and the sixth one wanted the hill to be declared as 'Samanar Kundru' (Jain hill).
The judges agreed that the hill's name should not be changed and no direction can be issued to pave road, construct toilets, drinking water pipelines, erect electricity poles, etc. as it would damage the hill. But they dissented on other aspects, such as permitting gatherings and animal sacrifice.
Dismissing all six petitions, Justice Banu recalled that the civil courts have recognised the rights of both the temple and the dargah. 'Since the matter has attained finality, I don't want to interfere with the same to preserve interfaith peace and amity, safeguarding secular coexistence, and to uphold the spirit of religious tolerance,' the judge said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
16 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Wife does not need husband's nod to get a passport, rules Madras HC
Madras High Court slams passport office for demanding husband's signature, says such practices reflect outdated patriarchal attitudes and violate a married woman's individual rights New Delhi The Madras High Court has ruled that a married woman does not require her husband's consent or signature to apply for a passport. The ruling came in response to a writ petition filed by a woman whose application was held up by the passport office due to the absence of her husband's signature on Form J — even though the couple is undergoing divorce proceedings, Bar and Bench reported. What led to the legal dispute? According to the court order, the woman and her husband were married in 2023 in accordance with Hindu customs. They had a daughter in 2024. However, the marriage soon turned sour, leading the husband to file for divorce in early 2025. The petition seeking dissolution of marriage is currently pending before the Sub Court. While the divorce case was still ongoing, the wife applied for a passport. The application was rejected by the passport office, which insisted she obtain her husband's signature in Form J — a requirement she found unreasonable, given the marital discord. When she explained her situation, officials reiterated that the only path forward was obtaining the husband's signature. Left with no other recourse, she moved the High Court, filing a writ petition against the Ministry of External Affairs, the passport office, and the Chennai Police, the news report said. What did the court observe? The Madras High Court took a firm stand on the issue. It expressed shock at the passport office's insistence, stating that the demand for a husband's permission reflects a deep-rooted patriarchal mindset. 'The insistence on part of the second respondent [passport office] shows the mindset of the society treating married women as if they are chattel belonging to the husband,' the court said. The government advocate representing the Chennai Police also confirmed that no criminal cases were pending against the woman. After examining the facts, the court said, 'In the considered view of this Court, the application submitted by the petitioner seeking for passport has to be processed independently. It is not necessary for a wife to get the permission of her husband and take his signature before applying for a passport before authority.' The court also noted the impracticality of expecting a woman embroiled in a legal separation to seek the husband's cooperation: 'Already the relationship between the petitioner (wife) and her husband is in doldrums and the second respondent [passport office] is expecting the petitioner to get the signature of the husband. Virtually, the second respondent is insisting the petitioner to fulfill an impossibility.' What the order say about women's rights? Reinforcing the autonomy of married women, the court stressed that a woman retains her individuality after marriage. 'The petitioner [wife] after marrying does not lose her individuality and a wife can always apply for a passport without the permission or signature of the husband in any form.' It further said, 'The practice of insisting for permission from the husband to apply for a passport, does not augur well for a society which is moving towards woman's emancipation. This practice is nothing short of male supremacism.' What was the final order? Concluding its order, the Madras High Court directed the passport office to process the woman's application without requiring her husband's signature. 'There shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent [passport office] to process the application submitted by the petitioner [wife] and issue a passport in the name of the petitioner on the petitioner satisfying the other requirements. This process shall be completed by the 2nd respondent within a period four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.'
India Today
33 minutes ago
- India Today
Chirag Paswan camp calls Nitish Kumar's caste survey a betrayal of Dalits, tribals
Union Minister Chirag Paswan's party MP and brother-in-law, Arun Bharti, has hit out at the caste survey, which was conducted by the Nitish Kumar-led Mahagathbandhan government in Bihar in 2023, calling it a fraud and conspiracy against the marginalised section of the society including Dalits and Adivasis."Caste survey in the Mahagathbandhan government was a fraud and a well-planned conspiracy to keep the Bahujan community deprived of their rights", Arun Bharti Bharti, raised questions on the caste survey conducted by the Mahagathbandhan government and slammed then-Deputy CM Tejashwi Yadav for using the entire exercise to strengthen the Rashtriya Janata Dal's (RJD) vote bank of Muslims and Yadavs. "Tejashwi Yadav was the one who made the most noise about the caste survey and had claimed it would be a revolutionary step towards social justice, but what happened was just a half-baked caste survey wrapped in political cleverness in which there was neither social justice nor inclusive thinking. It was only to strengthen the claim to the chair by highlighting the number of its M-Y vote bank", Bharti Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) [LJP(R)] MP added that the caste survey only counted the number of castes but did not provide details regarding which caste was how poor, which caste had access to education and which not, what is the share of various castes in government services and who has what rights over the land and survey was a well-planned conspiracy to keep the Muslim and Yadav vote bank in power and administration. The survey was direct deceit against the Dalit, Mahadalit and tribal communities. The real objective was to convert the number of castes into a vote bank and strengthen their claim to power and not to give opportunities and rights to the deprived class", he the recently notified proposed caste census by the central government, he said Chirag Paswan played a decisive role in the government getting approval for the actual caste census to take place, in which the idea was not only to collect numbers, but also to get details regarding the educational, economic and administrative roles of different castes."Now not just numbers, but complete social and economic details will be recorded. The condition of the Bahujan community will be presented with evidence in the constitution, policy and the court so that they can get a constitution and equitable reservation. The data collected will become a solid foundation for expanding reservations and policymaking in favour of the Bahujan community", Arun Bharti said.- Ends
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Thiruparankundram hill: Madras High Court judges take differing views, place them before Chief Justice
After two judges of a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court took differing views on petitions pertaining to Tirupparankundram hill, the matter was placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. A Division Bench of Justices J. Nisha Banu and S. Srimathy took different views after hearing six petitions, which sought various directions including prevention of animal sacrifice, provision of civic amenities and restoration and maintenance of the hill as a site of national importance. Justice J. Nisha Banu observed it was an admitted fact that the hill housed the ancient Subramaniya Swamy (Murugan) Temple, Sikandar Badusha Dargah and Jain temples. The dispute regarding the rights of the Temple Devasthanam was adjudicated by the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, and confirmed by the judgment of the Privy Council, which affirmed that the whole of Tirupparankundram hill, except 33 cents, belong to Lord Murugan. The civil court had not only recognised the rights of both the parties with regard to the places of the worship but also had defined the rights. Since the matter has attained finality during the earlier years of the past century, the court observed it was not inclined to interfere with the same, with a view to preserving interfaith peace and amity, safeguarding secular coexistence and upholding the spirit of religious tolerance and unity among the people. Given that ritualistic animal sacrifices were traditionally performed in several Hindu temples across Madurai region, a blanket prohibition would amount to discriminatory enforcement. Animal sacrifice being an established religious practice was observed not only in the dargah but also in several Hindu temples across the country, and therefore, it could not be selectively banned, the court said. Now, there was no statutory bar against the traditional practice of animal sacrifice at religious places in Tamil Nadu. The dargah was located on the southern side peak of the hill, while the Subramaniya Swamy Temple and the Kasi Viswanathar Temple are situated at different locations. Thus, no religious practices of one community impinge upon the sacred spaces of another, the judge observed and directed the authorities to maintain public peace, harmony and tranquillity. However, Justice S. Srimathy directed that the Tirupparankundram hill should continue to be called as the Tirupparankundram hill and should not be called either Sikkandar Malai or Samanar Kundru. Any quarrying of the hill was prohibited.. The judge observed as far as the animal sacrifice was concerned the claim of the dargah was that the Kandoori was a form of animal sacrifice which was practised for long. If the dargah had followed the practice of Kandoori animal sacrifice there would be some evidence to prove it. The dargah had not produced any evidence. The dargah was directed to approach the civil court to establish the practice of Kandoori animal sacrifice and Ramzan and Bakrid prayers and other Islamic festivals was prevailing prior to the 1920 original suit. However, the dargah was allowed to do the Santhanakodu festival. Since nobody was allowed to Kasi Viswanathar Temple and Sikkandar Dargah after 6 p.m., electricity connection was not necessary. The hill would be damaged if road, drinking water supply and toilet were granted, hence the same should not be granted. However, for drinking water supply, the temple should carry water manually and duly instruct the devotees who visit Kasi Vishwanathar Temple to carry water on their own. Likewise, the dargah should carry water manually and also duly instruct the devotees to carry water on their own. For any construction or renovation work at the dargah, the Managing Trustee should approach the Archaeological Department. The authorities were directed to allow the department to survey the hill, demarcate the protected monuments, the dargah, the temple and note all physical features along with measurements. The exercise should be completed in one year and a report should be submitted to the court, the judge directed. 'In light of the difference of opinion that has arisen on the legal issue, place the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders,' the court directed.
