Thiruparankundram hill: Madras High Court judges take differing views, place them before Chief Justice

The Hindu

5 hours ago

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.