Madras High Court Delivers Split Verdict On Plea Against Animal Sacrifice At Dargah In Thiruparakundram Hills

While Justice Nisha Banu refused to interfere with the practice of animal sacrifice, Justice S Srimathy took a different view and said that the Dargah should approach the civil court to establish their right to practice the Kandoori animal sacrifice and prayers during Ramzan, Bakrid and other Islamic festivals. The matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

The Thiruparakundram Hills houses both the Kasivishwanathar temple and Sikkandar darga. The hill also consists of Jain temples. Recently, the hill became the eye of the storm, when an attempt was made to perform animal sacrifice at the Dargah. The present petitions were filed to prevent the Dargah and its Jamaat members from carrying out animal sacrifice at the hill and from serving food prepared by animal sacrifice.

Another petition was filed to declare the hill as “Samanar Kundru” (Jain heritage) and to maintain the hill as a site of national importance and desist activities which are against Jain principles and preachings. Petitions were also filed seeking appropriate action to provide civic amenities like proper road, street lights, etc.

Justice Nisha Banu opined that a blanket prohibition on animal sacrifice would amount to discriminatory enforcement. The judge noted that animal sacrifice in the Dargah had been prevalent from time immemorial and the practice was not only performed by Muslims but by other communities. The judge added that when there was no statutory ban on animal sacrifice in Tamil Nadu, the court could not restrict the religious practice, which was protected under Article 25(2) of the Constitution.

The judge highlighted that rituals, observances, ceremonies and mode of worship were integral parts of a religion and no outside authority had any jurisdiction to interfere in the practices.

“Article 25 of Constitution of India confers the Right to Freedom of Religion which includes "practice", and the same can only be interfered only by a law enacted under sub-clause (2) of Article 25. 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. Rituals, observances, ceremonies and mode of worship are regarded as integral parts of religion, which will even extend to matters of food and dress and no outside authority has any jurisdiction to interfere with such practises,” Justice Banu said.

Justice Nisha Banu also noted that as per the civil court's order in the earliest round of litigation, the Thiruparakundram hills had not been vested with any particular individual or group but was bested on the Temple. Further, since there was no allegation of violation of Temple's rights, the judge held that the prayer seeking to prohibit animal sacrifice by the dargah had no merits.

The judge thus directed the authorities to take firm and immediate steps against persons/organisations attempting to disrupt the public peace, harmony and tranquility in the area.

Differing from this view, Justice S Srimathy opined that if the Dargah had been following the practice of Kandoori animal sacrifice, there would have been evidence to prove the same but no such evidence was brought in by the Dargah members. The judge noted that there were no meat stalls near the temple and most of the marriage halls in Thiruparakundram did not permit non-vegetarian cooking, suggesting at how the devotees were protecting the holiness of the Hill and the temple. The judge added that even if the Dargah had followed the practice of animal sacrifice, it would have been without the knowledge of the temple, considering how an opposition was raised to the practice in the present year.

Though an argument was raised that animal sacrifice was prevalent in Hinduism also, the judge remarked that the argument was not acceptable as such practice was not prevailing for the deity in the present temple.

The judge held that even as per the literature of the dargah, only Santhanakoodu was celebrated at the Dargah where on the 17^th day of Ramzan month, people would visit the tomb and adorn it with Sandalwood paste, shawl, flowers, and sprinkle scents. The judge thus held that the pamphlet regarding slaughtering of goats and chickens, which was distributed this year, was malicious and mischievous and would lead to communal disharmony. The judge also directed the authorities to take action against the persons involved in such malicious act.

“Having held so, this Court is of the considered opinion that the pamphlet stating slaughtering of goat and chicken in Sikkandar Dargah is definitely mischievous and malicious. The same would clearly lead to communal disharmony. Further the people who came to dargah with the malicious pamphlet had painted the Jain caves in green paints. Also the sign boards stating “Way to Kasi Viswanathar Temple” was also painted with green paints. These acts are carried on by the people who issued the malicious pamphlet is highly condemnable. The official respondents are directed to take action against the persons involved in such malicious act,” the court said.

Justice Srimathy also directed the Archaeological Department to survey the hill, demarcate the protected monuments, dargah, temple and to note all the physical features. The judge said that such an exercise would indicate religious harmony.

With respect to the availability of civil amenities, both the judges opined that since no entry was permitted in the temple after 6pm, electricity connection was not necessary. The bench also rejected pleas to rename the temple.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. N. Sundaresan, Mr.Niranjan S Kumar, Mr.H.Md.Imran, For M/s.Ajmal Associates, Mr.S.Sarvangan Prabhu, Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Veera Kathiravan, Addl. Advocate General Assisted by Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, Govt. Pleader, Mr.S. Manohar, Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, Senior Counsel For Mr.B.Arun, Mr.S.Ravi, Asst. Public Prosecutor, Mr.K.Govindarajan, D.S.G.I, Ms.S.Deva Sena

Case Title: M. Kannan @ Solai Kannan v. The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 214