The DMK government of Tamil Nadu asserted in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court that the practice of sacrificing animals has long been followed at Thiruparankundram hill in Madurai.
The case originated from a Public Interest Litigation filed by Solai Kannan, the Madurai district president of the Hindu Makkal Katchi. He claimed that the ancient Subramaniya Swamy (Murugan) Temple holds ownership over Thiruparankundram hill. Referencing a ruling from the British era, he argued that key locations on the hill including the Sikandar Badusha Dargah, the flagpole in front of it, an eel tree grove, the steps leading to the Dargah, and a newly constructed mandapam are all under the temple’s jurisdiction.
Kannan further urged the court to prohibit individuals from performing animal sacrifices involving goats, cows, and chickens on the hill, and from attempting to rename or represent the hill as “Sikandar Hill.” Several other related petitions seeking various forms of relief were also submitted.
A division bench comprising Justices J. Nisha Banu and S. Srimathy considered the matter. On 24 June, Justice Nishabanu rejected all petitions, while Justice Srimati issued a separate judgment. As a result of the split verdict, the matter was escalated to a third judge, R. Vijayakumar, who took up the case on 11 August 2025.
During the hearing, the judge questioned whether there was historical or documented proof referring to the site as Sikandar Hill and if animal sacrifices were indeed a longstanding tradition there.
In response, Additional Chief Government Advocates Veera Kathiravan and Ravindran emphasized that religious practices should not be discriminated against based on caste, religion, or dietary customs. They presented records indicating that the location has been known as Sikandar Hill and that the practice of sacrificing goats and chickens has been ongoing. They also pointed to similar rituals carried out at the 18th Karupanaswamy Temple in Alagarkoil.
They concluded by stating that religious freedoms must be respected, and no one should obstruct another’s right to practice their faith. Following these arguments, the judge postponed the hearing.
(With inputs from Dinamalar)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.