Devotive during the Lord Subraminaswamy Automotive Festival in Tirupparanundram in Madurai. File | Photo Credit: R. Ashok
After two judgments of the Madurai bench division, the Madurai in Madras took different views on petitions concerning the TirupparanDram hill, the matter was submitted to the main judge for a suitable order.
J. Nisha Ban and S. Srimatha’s divisional bench took different views after hearing six petitions looking for different directions, including the prevention of animal victims, providing civic equipment and renewal and maintenance of the hill as a place of national importance.
Justice J. Nisha Banu noted that it was admitted to the fact that the hill was placed by the ancient temple of Subramaniya Swamy (Murugan), Sikandar Badusha Dargah and Jain temples. The dispute concerning the rights of the Devasthanam temple was decided by the first additional subordinate Judge Madurai and confirmed by the judgment of Priva Council, who confirmed that the entire hills of Tirupparanundram, with the exception of 33 cents, belongs to Lord Murugan.
The Civil Court not only recognized the rights of both parties with regard to the places of worship, but also defined rights. Given that the matter reached finality in previous years of the last century, the court noted that it was not inclined to interfere with the same, in order to preserve the inter -religious peace and friendship, to protect secular coexistence and adhere to the spirit of religious tolerance and unity among people.
Given that the ritual victims of animals have traditionally been carried out in several Hindu temples throughout the Madurai region, there would be a blanket ban on discriminatory enforcement. The victim of animals that was established religious practice was observed not only in Dargah, but also in several Hindu temples across the country, and therefore could not be selectively prohibited, the court said.
Now there was no legal bar against the traditional practice of animal sacrifices in religious places in Tamil Nadu. Dargah was placed on the south side of the top of the hill, while the Temple of Subramaniya Swamy and the Kasi Viswanathar temple are located in various places. Thus, the judge noted and ordered the authorities to maintain public peace, harmony and peace, no religious practices of one community for the sacred space of another.
However, justice S. Srimatha ordered that the hill of Tirupparanundram should continue to be called the hill of Tirupparankndram and should not be called Sikkandar Malai or Samanar Kundra. Any hill hunting was forbidden ..
The judge noted that as far as the victim of animals was concerned, he fears that the claims of Dargah was that Kandoori was a victim of animals that had long been practiced. If Dargah followed the practice of Kandoori animals, there would be some evidence to do that. Dargah did not provide any evidence.
Dargah was ordered to turn to the Civic Court to create the Kandoori Animal Sacrifice and Ramzan and Bakrid Prayer and other Islamic festivals before the original 1920 indictment. However, Dargah was allowed to perform the Santhanakod festival.
Given that no one was allowed by the Kasi Viswanathar and Sikkandar Dargah after 18:00, there was no need for electricity. The hill would be damaged if the road was provided, drinking water supply and toilet, and therefore it should be awarded.
However, for drinking water supply, the temple should carry water manually and properly instruct the devotees who visit the Kasi Vishwanathar temple to carry the water themselves. Likewise, Dargah should carry water manually and also instruct the devoted to carry the water themselves.
For any construction or renovation in Dargah, the manager should approach the archaeological department. The authorities were ordered to allow the department to allow the hill, the definition of protected monuments, Dargah, the temple and record all the physical features along with the measurements. The exercise should be completed in one year and the judge should be submitted, ordered by a judge.
“In view of the difference between the opinions that appeared in a legal problem, enter the matter in front of the main judge,” the court ordered.
Published – June 24, 2025 23:09
