M.Kannan @ Solai Kannan S/o.R.Muthusamy [Appellant] Vs. The District Collector [Respondents]
W.P.(MD)Nos.2277, 3703 & 2678 of 2025, 15565 & 23198 of 2023
(THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY)
On June 25, 2025, the Madras High Court delivered a split verdict on the contentious issue of animal sacrifice at the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah located at Thiruparankundram Hill. The Division Bench comprising Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice S Srimathy differed on key legal and religious aspects, especially regarding the permissibility of animal sacrifice and the nomenclature of the hill.
The case involved a set of six petitions, including those filed by Hindu and Jain organizations, seeking a ban on animal sacrifice, restrictions on religious gatherings near the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, and a declaration of the hill as “Samanar Kundru” to emphasize its Jain heritage.
Justice Nisha Banu’s Opinion: Justice Banu dismissed the plea to prohibit animal sacrifice and Muslim congregations, stating that such practices were not exclusive to the Dargah. She emphasized that ritual animal sacrifices are prevalent in various Hindu temples across the Madurai region, and banning them selectively would lead to discriminatory enforcement. She invoked Article 25 of the Constitution, which protects the right to practice one’s religion, including rituals involving food, dress, and worship. In her view, unless restricted by specific legislation under Article 25(2), courts should not interfere in established religious customs. She warned against communalizing long-standing practices that have coexisted peacefully in the region.
Justice S Srimathy’s Dissenting View: Justice Srimathy, however, held that the Dargah had failed to prove that animal sacrifices were part of its long-standing religious traditions. She observed that there was no supporting evidence and pointed out that the surrounding area maintained vegetarian sanctity, with no meat stalls within 300 meters of the temple and restrictions on non-vegetarian food in local marriage halls. She criticized a pamphlet promoting goat and chicken slaughter at the Dargah as provocative and a threat to communal harmony. She instructed authorities to take legal action against those responsible for disseminating the pamphlet and defacing local religious landmarks.
Justice Srimathy further directed that Thiruparankundram Hill should not be referred to by alternate names such as “Sikkandar Malai” or “Samanar Kundru” and ordered a complete ban on quarrying to preserve its religious and ecological integrity. She ruled that the Dargah must approach a civil court to prove the historical continuity of Kandoori animal sacrifices and religious observances like Ramzan and Bakrid prior to 1920. Until then, these practices would not be considered legally established, although the Dargah was allowed to continue with the Santhanakoodu festival. She also clarified that, since both the Dargah and the Kasi Viswanathar Temple close after 6 PM, no electricity supply was needed at night. Due to the divided opinion, the matter will now be referred to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court for appropriate directions and possible assignment to a third judge to resolve the deadlock.
