In a highly sensitive and controversial case, the Madras High Court bench delivered a split verdict on a series of petitions that challenged the practice of animal sacrifice at a Dargah situated on Thiruparankundram Hill in Madurai, Tamil Nadu. The petitions also sought to rename the hill. However, the court unanimously rejected any renaming effort, while expressing divided opinions on the issue of religious animal sacrifice.

The Thiruparankundram Hill has drawn national attention in recent months after strong protests from Hindu groups opposing the practice of animal sacrifice at the hilltop Dargah. The hill is religiously significant, not just for Muslims but also for Hindus and Jains. It houses the Sikandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah, the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, the Kasi Viswanathar Temple, and ancient Jain caves, making it a deeply sensitive religious location for multiple communities.

The verdict was passed by a division bench consisting of Justices J Nisha Banu and S Srimathy. While both judges rejected the proposal to rename the hill, they sharply differed when it came to the validity of animal sacrifice rituals on the site.

Justice J Nisha Banu highlighted that the religious spaces of the different communities were physically separate and that their respective practices did not encroach on one another. She observed:

“The Thiruparankundram Hill, insofar as the Hindus are concerned and subject to the recognised rights of the Mohammedans, is not vested with any individual or any particular group or association of people, but is vested with Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Thiruparankundram. There is no allegations of violation of the rights of the Temple in respect of the Thiruparankundram Hills, as such rights have been recognised and confirmed by the Civil Courts.”

In her ruling dated 25th June, Justice Banu defended the tradition of animal sacrifice, explaining that the custom was not exclusive to one religion. She noted that both Hindus and Muslims had followed the practice for generations.

“…it is evident that the animal sacrifice in the Dargah located at Thiruparankundram Hills has been prevalent as a religious practice from time immemorial practices not only by Muslims but also by other communities as well. It is also pertinent to note that the Tamil Nadu Animals and Birds Sacrifices Prohibition Act, 1950 was repealed in 2004 by Tamil Nadu Act 20 of 2004. Therefore, as on date, there is no statutory bar against the traditional practice of animal sacrifice at religious places in Tamil Nadu,” she wrote.

However, Justice S Srimathy took a different stance. She disagreed with Banu’s view, stating there was no sufficient historical or legal basis to prove that such a practice was genuinely an ancient tradition at the Sikkandar Dargah.

“… the Court is of the considered opinion that the RDO is right in coming to conclusion that the parties ought to approach Civil Court to establish whether Kandoori animal sacrifice was an established practice in Sikkandar Dargah. Therefore, this Court has held that there is no such practice of Kanthoori animal sacrifice in Sikkandar Dargah. If at all they practice, the dargah may approach appropriate civil court to establish such practice,” she observed.

She further instructed that:

“The Dargah is directed to approach Civil Court to establish their practice of Kandoori animal sacrifice as well as prayer during Ramzan, Bakrith and other Islamic festival was prevailing prior to O.S.No.4 of 1920,” making it clear that documentation and legal validation would be required before any further action.

Madurai is turning to become Ayodhya of South..?? Lakhs of Hindu Devotees gathering today to save the first abode of Lord Murugan from Jihadist on the Thiruparankundram hill in Madurai... See what is its history and today's program... A Muslim Dargah was built during the… pic.twitter.com/T2NnREREFI — विनोद बंसल Vinod Bansal বিনোদ বনসল వినోద్ బన్సాల్ (@vinod_bansal) June 22, 2025

Clash over Tradition and Territory: Background of the Dispute

The current legal and religious dispute stems from an incident that occurred on 27th December last year. A Muslim family led by 53-year-old Syed Abu Dahir from Malaiyadipatti attempted to carry animals up the hill to perform a sacrificial ritual. The police detained the group, which led to a wave of anger among local Muslims. Soon after, 20 Islamists protested against the police action, escalating tensions in the region.

This was followed by larger demonstrations in January this year, where Muslim groups demanded free and unrestricted access to the hilltop. They insisted that animal sacrifice was a long-standing religious tradition that should be respected and continued. During these protests, the hill was referred to by some as ‘Sikandar Hills’, a name that was not officially recognized and stirred controversy among the other religious communities.

In the same month, a serious confrontation occurred when Islamist groups, including members of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI)—the political wing of the banned terrorist outfit Popular Front of India (PFI)—attempted to carry out Qurbani (animal slaughter) at the hilltop. Police intervened and prevented the act, though they permitted the carrying and consumption of cooked meat at the Sikandar Dargah.

The situation intensified further when unknown individuals painted the ancient Jain caves green, an act seen as deliberately provocative by the Hindu community. This sparked fury, especially considering the caves’ archaeological and religious importance.

Reacting to the growing tension, Hindu groups like Bharat Hindu Munnani held protests in February, demanding a complete halt to animal sacrifices on the hill. The Hindu side argued that the hill is a sacred space with ancient temples and caves, and that allowing animal slaughter disrespected its religious sanctity.

Despite this, Muslim groups maintained their stance, claiming the entire hill as Waqf property and repeatedly arguing that animal sacrifice was their age-old tradition. Their continued usage of the term ‘Sikandar Hills’ further fueled the conflict and deepened communal rifts in the area.