Tiruparankundram hill issue: Madras HC delivers split verdict on pleas

MADURAI: The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday delivered a split verdict in pleas concerning religious practice on Tiruparankundram in Madurai.

Totally six writ petitions were filed, out of which two petitions sought directions from the respondents concerned to prevent Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah, Jamath Members, Tiruparankundram, Madurai district, at any point of time, from performing any form of animal sacrifice in the entire hill and not to conduct prayer or any other gathering in Nellithoppu at Arulmighu Subramaniaswamy Thirukovil .

A petitioner sought civic amenities such as proper road, street lights, drinking water supply and toilet in the interest of the public visiting the Dargah and Temple.

Another petitioner sought to declare the Tiruparankundram Hill as “Samanar Kundru” and to restore and maintain the site of national importance.

A petitioner demanded that authorities should not interfere in the administration of Hazarath Sulthan Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah and consequently direct them not to prevent the petitioner from carrying out renovation and construction works in the place.

Justice J Nisha Banu in her order stated there is no allegation of violation of the rights of the temple in respect of the Thiruparankundram hill.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary to direct the authorities concerned to maintain public peace, harmony and tranquillity, to take firm and immediate steps against persons/organisations who attempt to disrupt the same. Accordingly, all writ petitions stand dismissed.

Justice S Srimathy directed the Dargah to approach the civil court to establish their practice of animal sacrifice as well as prayer during Ramzan, Bakrid and other Islamic festivals. However, the dargah is allowed to do the Santhanakoodu festival.

Since nobody is allowed after 6 pm to Kasi Viswanathar temple and Sikkandar Dargah, an electricity connection is not necessary.

The prayer seeking direction against police officials not to interfere is vague, and a blanket order of not to interfere could not be granted and hence rejected.

For any construction or renovation work of dargah, the managing trustee shall approach the archaeological department.

Archaeological department is allowed to survey the hill, demarcate the protected monuments stated supra, demarcate the dargah, demarcate the temple and note all physical features along with measurements and the said exercise shall be completed within a period of one year and submit a report.

In light of the difference of opinion that has arisen on the legal issue, matter’s placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.