Tamil Nadu Deepam row: Supreme Court backs Madras HC in Thirupparankundram, terms order 'very very balanced'

Supreme Court

• SC upholds Madras HC limits on namaz at Thirupparankundram dargah
• Prayers allowed only during Ramzan, Bakri-Eid; animal sacrifice still banned
• Restrictions aim to balance religious practices and maintain law and order

Did our AI summary help?

The Supreme Court on February 9 refused to interfere with a Madras High Court decision that limits the offering of namaz at the dargah situated on Thirupparankundram Hills in Tamil Nadu.

Calling the ruling a “very very balanced order,” the apex court affirmed that prayers at the Nellithoppu site can be conducted only during Ramzan and Bakri-Eid, and upheld the prohibition on animal sacrifice within the premises.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale dismissed the appeal filed by M Imam Hussain, a devotee at the dargah, who had challenged the High Court’s October 2025 judgment. “We do not propose to interfere with the order. Without expressing any opinion on rights of the parties, the impugned order stands upheld,” the bench observed.

The controversy relates to competing religious practices at the Thirupparankundram Deepam row at the hill in Madurai district, where the Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah occupies 33 cents of land in the Nellithoppu area.

The hill also houses the Arulmighu Subramaniaswamy Thirukovil temple, and disputes have arisen over prayers and rituals conducted near the shared pathways.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the restrictions were unwarranted. “... Ramzan and Bakri-eid festival days alone. That is what we are aggrieved by, the word alone...” he submitted, questioning why prayers were confined only to those two occasions. He pointed out that title over the 33 cents had been recognized by judicial forums in the past. “...once the Nellithoppu area has been decreed by the Trial Court and affirmed by Privy Council, the High Court also records that affirmation.

They say, Mohamaddens have been granted declaration of the title for the extent of 33 cents in the Nellithoppu area...now, the problem is, despite holding that the Nellithoppu area, the land belongs to Mohemmands, they have restricted prayers to Ramzan and Bakri-eid.”

Bhushan also maintained that there had never been disturbances linked to worship at the site. “Other conditions can be there, we maintain law and order, but there has never been a law and order problem,” he argued.

Responding to this contention, Justice Kumar remarked that if there had been no concerns, there would not have been deliberations by a Peace Committee. “It seems to be a very very balanced order,” he said, with Justice Varale concurring.

The matter has its roots in a split verdict delivered by a two-judge bench of the High Court in June 2025. Justice Nisha Banu declined to restrain the practice of animal sacrifice, while Justice S Srimathy took the position that the dargah authorities should seek civil court determination regarding Kandoori sacrifices and festival prayers.

Justice Srimathy also noted that namaz at Nellithoppu appeared to be a recent development and expressed concern that large gatherings could obstruct access to the Kasi Viswanathan temple and encroach upon parts of the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy temple complex.

Due to the differing views, the Chief Justice referred the case to a third judge. On October 10, 2025, the third judge ruled that Muslim devotees could offer namaz only during Ramzan and Bakri-Eid. The order barred animal sacrifice, cooking, or the serving of non-vegetarian food until a competent civil court adjudicates the claim of customary practice at the hillock.

A separate but related plea had questioned a High Court directive permitting the lighting of a lamp on the hill, subject to clearances from the Archaeological Survey of India and the police. That aspect too triggered debate, and the High Court later initiated contempt proceedings when the State cited law and order issues in declining to implement the direction.

With the Supreme Court declining to intervene, the restrictions imposed by the High Court will continue to operate.