No animal sacrifice in Tirupparankundram for now: third judge

Justice R. Vijayakumar of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, the tie-breaking judge in the Tirupparankundram hill case in which the Division Bench gave a split verdict, on Friday agreed with the view of Justice S. Srimathy, one of the two members of the Division Bench, that animal sacrifice, cooking, carrying or serving non-vegetarian food cannot be allowed in the hills for now. It ruled that restrictions on animal slaughter and non-vegetarian food should remain in place until a competent civil court decides on the matter. Regarding the name of the hillock, the judge ruled that the hillock should be named ‘Tirupparankundram’.

The other member of the Chamber Bench, Judge J. Nisha Banu, had given a different decision warranting the appointment of the third judge.

Justice Srimathy had relied on the 1920 civil court judgment and order in which the name of the hillock was mentioned as Tirupparankundram. Income records reflect the same.

Justice Vijayakumar took note of two Gazette notifications published by the Archaeological Survey of India in 1908 and 1923 and observed that they clearly stated the existence of Sikandar Badusha Dargah and the name of the hill was Tirupparankundram. There was no mention of “Sikandar Malai” from Tirupparankundram.

Regarding animal sacrifice, it stated that if one party claims that this practice has existed from time immemorial and the other party denies it, the party alleging the existence of such a traditional practice must approach a competent civil court to establish the same.

legal bar

Notifications issued by ASI declare 172.2 acres of land, covering almost the entire hill, as a protected monument. Under Rule 8(g) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Ruins Rules, 1959, the introduction of any animal for any purpose other than the maintenance of monuments is prohibited. According to Rule 8(c), cooking or consuming food is also prohibited, except when specifically permitted. The judge concluded that, as of today, there is therefore a legal impediment to the traditional practice of animal sacrifice on the hill.

According to the civil court order dated 1920, the traditional steps of the hill leading to the Nellithoppu area belong to the Devasthanam temple and the Subramaniaswamy Temple and the Kasi Vishwanathar Temple are connected to each other. The judge observed, therefore, that animal sacrifice, if permitted, was clearly prejudicial to the religious practices of a community.

Regarding the place of worship/meeting at Nellithoppu, Justice Vijayakumar observed that 33 cent title deeds were issued to Muslims in the area.

In such cases, if a large number of people are allowed to pray, the crowd is sure to invade the road leading to the Kasi Vishwanathar Temple and the traditional stairs leading to the Nellithoppu area, which is declared to belong to the Devasthanam temple. However, the judge said overcrowding could not be a justification for denying the right to pray unless it obstructed the path of devotees and the traditional stairs leading to the Nellithoppu area.

In Nellithoppu district, animal sacrifice, cooking, carrying or serving of non-vegetarian food cannot be permitted until an order is made by a competent civil court regarding the traditional practice of animal sacrifice on the hill. In fact, the Devasthanam temple has been declared the absolute owner of the traditional footprints leading to the Nellithoppu area. Muslims have the right to use only the road. The judge added that in such cases, they cannot use the road for any purpose other than reaching the Nellithoppu area.

He said Muslims may be allowed to worship at the Nellithoppu site only on the Eid days of Ramzan and Bakrid, subject to conditions, and they will not pollute or disturb the traditional footprints.

In this regard, Justice Vijayakumar agreed with Justice Banu, who dismissed the petition directing the authorities not to allow worship at Nellithoppu. He argued that the rights of the parties were already clear.