The Supreme Court on Monday (February 9,2026), refused to interfere with the Madras High Court judgement which held that no animal sacrifice can be permitted on the holy Thiruparankundram Hillock and that it cannot be renamed ‘Sikkandar Malai’ after the Sikkandar Dhargah located therein.
The HC also held that Mohammedans could be permitted to offer their prayers in ‘Nellithoppu’ area, during Ramzan and Bakrid festival days alone, “subject to the…conditions and they will not defile or spoil the traditional footsteps” which lead to the Hindu shrine.
“It seems to be a very, very balanced order,” Justice Aravind Kumar presiding over a two-judge bench said.
“We do not propose to interfere with the order. Without expressing any opinion with regard to the rights of the parties, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed,” the bench also comprising Justice P.B. Varale said in its order.
The appeal was filed by one M. Imam Hussain, who claimed to be a worshipper of the dhargah.
Appearing for Hussain, Advocate Prashant Bhushan said that the HC despite affirming that the 33 cents of land belong to the Mohemmadans, had however restricted offering prayers there to the two occasions – Ramzan and Bakrid. He added that there has never been any law-and-order problem there.
In June 2025, the Madurai bench of the HC had delivered a split verdict on petitions which sought directions against renaming the hills as Sikkandar Malai, prohibit animal sacrifice there and not to allow prayers or gathering at the ‘Nellithoppu’ area.
While Justice J. Nisha Banu dismissed the petitions, Justice S. Srimathy upheld the prayers. Following this, the matter was referred to a third judge, Justice R. Vijayakumar,
In his judgement dated October 10, 2025m Justice Vijayakumar agreed with Justice Srimathy’s view that the nomenclature of the place was Thiruparankundram rock and not Sikkandar Malai.
He referred to two notifications issued by the Archeological Survey of India, the first dated July 29, 1908 and under Section 3(1) of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904 declaring rock-cut caves and inscription on the southern side of Thiruparankundram rock as a protected monument; and the second dated February 7, 1923, by which the cavern with Pancha Pandava beds on the western slope of the hills and similar beds behind the dhargah on the top of Thiruparankundram Hill were declared to be protected monuments under the same provisions of the Act and said, “these two notifications clearly indicate the presence of Sikkandar Mosque and the name of the hill as Thiruparankundram rock. There is no reference about the Thirupparankundram Hill as Sikkandar Malai.”
The judge added that “when the entire Thiruparankundram Hillock has been declared to be the property of Devasthanam, merely because title has been declared in favour of Mohammedans to a minuscule part of the said hill, it cannot be contended that the entire hill should be named after the Mosque/Dhargah.”
Justice Vijayakumar also agreed with Justice Srimathy’s decision that no animal sacrifice can be permitted at the dhargah.
Justice Nisha Bahu had said that animal sacrifice is being performed traditionally in various Hindu temples too and therefore, the same cannot be selectively prohibited in the Dhargah located on the top of the hill.
Baking Justice Srimathy’s findings, Justice Vijayakumar said animal sacrifice is being performed only in some of the Dhargahs/Mosques and not in all the Mosques or Dhargahs and therefore, the Sikkandar Dhargah should first establish that such a customary practice was prevalent there.
Justice Vijayakumar also referred to the two ASI notifications and said that as per the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules 1959, bringing any animal for any purpose other than the maintenance of monuments is a prohibited act. The Rules also prohibit cooking or consuming of food in such protected areas except where it is permitted specifically and said, “therefore, as on today, there is a statutory bar against the traditional practice of animal sacrifice over the Thiruparankundram Hillock”.
Justice Banu had also dismissed the plea for direction for initiating action against the Dhargah authorities not to conduct prayers or gathering at Nellithoppu while Justice Srimathy allowed it saying that the persons offering prayers are occupying the pathway leading to Kasi Vishwanathar Temple and also other places belonging to the temple.
Justice Vijayakumar while agreeing with Justice Banu said “over-crowding cannot be a ground for denying the right to offer prayers within the Nellithoppu area, provided it does not obstruct the pathway to the devotees and the traditional steps leading up to the Nellithoppu area.”
He added, “however, in the Nellithoppu area any animal sacrifice, cooking, carrying or serving of any nov-vegetarian food cannot be permitted until a decision is rendered by a competent Civil Court with regard to the customary practice of animal sacrifice upon the Thiruparankundram Hillock.”
