Madras HC Bans Animal Sacrifice

Source : Indian Express 

Introduction 

Can a dargah continue the centuries-old practice of animal sacrifice when it sits atop a hill considered sacred by multiple religious communities? The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court answered this question with a decisive "no" on October 15, 2025. Justice R. Vijayakumar's ruling, delivered after a two-judge bench could not agree, prohibited animal sacrifice at the Sikandar Badusha Dargah located atop Thiruparankundram Hill in Madurai. This decision addresses a sensitive religious dispute involving constitutional rights, historical ownership claims, and the protection of ancient monuments. 

What Is the Background of This Case? 

• The Thiruparankundram Hill is a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, and hosts both a temple complex and a dargah at its summit. 
• The hill is known by different names across communities: "Skanda Malai" among Hindus, "Sikkandar Malai" among Muslims, "Samanar Kundru" among Jains, and historically as "Thiruparankundram Hill." 
• The Dargah sits near a network of temples and caves, and the steps leading up to it form part of the pathway to the Kasi Viswanathar Temple at the peak. 
• The recent conflict began when the Dargah trustees circulated a pamphlet announcing a "Samabandhi Feast 2025" that included slaughter of goats and hens "to promote communal harmony," referring to the hill as "Sikkandar Malai." 
• Hindu groups objected to animal sacrifice on what they considered sacred ground, and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department filed a representation before district authorities. 
• The District Collector's report acknowledged animal sacrifice in some religious contexts but did not establish it as an essential practice at the Dargah. 

What Is the Litigation History of This Dispute? 

• The dispute over Thiruparankundram Hill dates back more than a century to 1920. 
• In 1920, the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple sought a declaration of ownership over the entire hill after the Dargah attempted to build a small structure. 
• The trial court ruled in 1923 that the Temple owned almost the entire hill, except approximately 33 cents of land at Nellithoppu where the mosque and flagstaff of the Dargah stand. 
• In 1931, the Privy Council (then the highest judicial authority) confirmed that the Temple had held the hill "from time immemorial." 
• Subsequent cases in 1958 prohibited quarrying outside the Dargah's limited area, and in 2011 restrained any new construction or lighting without the Temple's permission. 
• Over a century, courts have consistently upheld the Temple's title over the hill while recognizing the Dargah's rights only within its 33-cent plot. 

Why Did Two Judges Disagree? 

• Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice S. Srimathy heard the case together but reached opposite conclusions, creating a split verdict. 
• Justice Banu's View: She dismissed the petitions, noting that animal sacrifice was practiced in various religious institutions and "cannot be selectively banned." She held that a blanket prohibition would amount to discriminatory enforcement. Citing Article 25 of the Constitution (right to freely practice religion), she stated that "in the absence of any law prohibiting animal sacrifice, which is a part of religious practice, there cannot be any order by this court restraining such activity." 
• Justice Srimathy's View: She found that animal sacrifice at the Dargah was neither supported by historical nor legal records. She described the pamphlet announcing animal slaughter as "definitely mischievous and malicious" that "would clearly lead to communal disharmony." She ruled that the Dargah could approach a civil court to prove any claim of customary practice. 
• On the naming issue, Justice Banu found no legal bar to calling the hill "Sikkandar Malai," while Justice Srimathy ruled the name could not be changed and called the pamphlets "mischievous and an attempt to change the name of the hill." 
• Regarding prayers at Nellithoppu, Justice Banu recognized the Dargah community's right to worship based on earlier decrees, while Justice Srimathy held that recent large gatherings obstructed temple pathways and violated earlier orders. 

What Did the Third Judge Decide? 

• Justice R. Vijayakumar agreed with Justice Srimathy on animal sacrifice and naming issues, and with Justice Banu on limited prayer rights at Nellithoppu. 
• On Animal Sacrifice: The judge noted that while the Dargah claimed long-standing practice, "reliance cannot be placed upon the practice being followed in certain temples, especially in the light of the fact that the Dargah is located on the top of the hillock, which is considered to be a God by itself by the Hindu devotees." 
• He emphasized that "unless positive evidence is let in to establish such a customary practice prevailing from time immemorial, the practices followed in other temples cannot be cited as a reason." 
• The judge rejected testimony from a goat skinner claiming historical practice, stating that such evidence under Section 164 CrPC "does not have any evidentiary value" and can only be used to corroborate or contradict witnesses. 
• Referring to the Ancient Monuments Act, Justice Vijayakumar observed that Rule 8 of ASI Rules prohibits bringing animals into protected sites or cooking and serving food within them unless specifically permitted. 
• The court restrained animal sacrifice and directed the Dargah to approach a civil court to establish that the practice existed before the 1920 decree. 
• On Naming: The judgment held that the site must continue to be called "Thiruparankundram Hill" and "shall not be called either as Sikkandar Malai or as Samanar Kundru." 
• On Prayers: Justice Vijayakumar permitted Muslims to offer prayers in the Nellithoppu area during Ramzan and Bakrid festival days alone, restricting gatherings to that area and prohibiting carrying or serving non-vegetarian food. 

What Are the Court's Directions? 

• Animal sacrifice at the Dargah is completely prohibited. 
• The site must be referred to as Thiruparankundram Hill only. 
• Prayers are permitted only in the 33-cent Nellithoppu area during Ramzan and Bakrid. 
• Non-vegetarian food cannot be carried or served on the hill. 
• The pathway used by temple devotees must not be obstructed. 
• Devotees must not defile or spoil the traditional footsteps. 
• Quarrying of the hill is expressly prohibited. 
• The Archaeological Department must conduct a survey of the entire hill and submit a report within one year. 

Conclusion 

The Madras High Court's ruling represents a careful balancing act between religious freedom under Article 25 and the preservation of protected monuments under statutory law. By prohibiting animal sacrifice while allowing limited prayer rights, the court has attempted to respect both historical ownership patterns and religious sensibilities. The judgment emphasizes that customary religious practices must be proven with positive evidence, especially when they occur on protected monuments sacred to multiple communities. This decision underscores the judiciary's role in resolving complex disputes involving heritage, faith, and communal harmony, setting an important precedent for how courts handle conflicts at shared sacred spaces.