The Supreme Court has chosen not to step in against a Madras High Court decision that restricts Muslim prayers at the Nellithoppu area of Thiruparankundram Hill to two occasions each year—Ramzan and Bakrid.
A bench of the apex court dismissed the challenge to the High Court’s ruling, observing that the lower court had struck a careful and even-handed balance while addressing a dispute layered with religious, historical and public-order concerns.
The petition had questioned the logic of confining prayers to just two days in the calendar, arguing that the land in question was associated with the Muslim community and that prayers there had not led to law-and-order problems in the past. It was suggested that reasonable safeguards could address crowd management or nuisance without narrowing the right to worship itself.
The Court, however, was not persuaded to reopen the arrangement crafted by the High Court and allowed that framework to stand.
A hill shared by histories
The dispute centres on the Thiruparankundram hillock near Madurai, a site that houses the ancient Arulmigu Subramaniya Swami Temple as well as the Sikkander Dargah located in the Nellithoppu area. Over time, concerns were raised about religious practices on the hill, prompting multiple petitions before the Madras High Court.
Three questions dominated the debate there: whether animal sacrifice could take place at the dargah, whether the hill could be referred to as “Sikkandar Malai,” and how far Muslim prayers could extend at Nellithoppu.
After an initial split verdict, the matter went to a third judge. The final view held that animal sacrifice could not be permitted unless it was first established, through separate proceedings, as a site-specific custom. The presence of protected monuments on the hill was also cited, making prior clearance from heritage authorities a legal necessity.
On the issue of renaming, the High Court firmly rejected attempts to rebrand the hillock. Official records, heritage notifications and earlier rulings consistently identified it as Thiruparankundram, the court noted, adding that the dargah’s rights were confined to a limited portion of the hill and could not justify renaming the entire site.
Prayer, with conditions
The most sensitive question involved prayers at Nellithoppu. Complaints before the High Court pointed to overcrowding, littering and the carrying of non-vegetarian food, all of which were said to disrupt the sanctity of the hill and inconvenience other devotees using the same pathways.
While the court acknowledged that crowding alone could not justify a blanket ban, it imposed tight conditions. Prayers were allowed only during Ramzan and Bakrid, and even then subject to strict rules: no obstruction of pathways, no nuisance, and no animal sacrifice, cooking or carrying of non-vegetarian food.
It was this narrow window for prayer that reached the Supreme Court.
With the top court declining to interfere, the High Court’s carefully calibrated arrangement remains in force—preserving access for worship during two key festivals while maintaining restrictions aimed at protecting the shared and sensitive character of Thiruparankundram Hill.
