Thiruparankundram hill: Madras High Court judges take differing views, place them before Chief Justice
A Division Bench of Justices J. Nisha Banu and S. Srimathy took different views after hearing six petitions, which sought various directions including prevention of animal sacrifice, provision of civic amenities and restoration and maintenance of the hill as a site of national importance.
Justice J. Nisha Banu observed it was an admitted fact that the hill housed the ancient Subramaniya Swamy (Murugan) Temple, Sikandar Badusha Dargah and Jain temples. The dispute regarding the rights of the Temple Devasthanam was adjudicated by the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, and confirmed by the judgment of the Privy Council, which affirmed that the whole of Tirupparankundram hill, except 33 cents, belong to Lord Murugan.
The civil court had not only recognised the rights of both the parties with regard to the places of the worship but also had defined the rights. Since the matter has attained finality during the earlier years of the past century, the court observed it was not inclined to interfere with the same, with a view to preserving interfaith peace and amity, safeguarding secular coexistence and upholding the spirit of religious tolerance and unity among the people.
Given that ritualistic animal sacrifices were traditionally performed in several Hindu temples across Madurai region, a blanket prohibition would amount to discriminatory enforcement. Animal sacrifice being an established religious practice was observed not only in the dargah but also in several Hindu temples across the country, and therefore, it could not be selectively banned, the court said.
Now, there was no statutory bar against the traditional practice of animal sacrifice at religious places in Tamil Nadu. The dargah was located on the southern side peak of the hill, while the Subramaniya Swamy Temple and the Kasi Viswanathar Temple are situated at different locations. Thus, no religious practices of one community impinge upon the sacred spaces of another, the judge observed and directed the authorities to maintain public peace, harmony and tranquillity.
However, Justice S. Srimathy directed that the Tirupparankundram hill should continue to be called as the Tirupparankundram hill and should not be called either Sikkandar Malai or Samanar Kundru. Any quarrying of the hill was prohibited..
The judge observed as far as the animal sacrifice was concerned the claim of the dargah was that the Kandoori was a form of animal sacrifice which was practised for long. If the dargah had followed the practice of Kandoori animal sacrifice there would be some evidence to prove it. The dargah had not produced any evidence.
The dargah was directed to approach the civil court to establish the practice of Kandoori animal sacrifice and Ramzan and Bakrid prayers and other Islamic festivals was prevailing prior to the 1920 original suit. However, the dargah was allowed to do the Santhanakodu festival.
Since nobody was allowed to Kasi Viswanathar Temple and Sikkandar Dargah after 6 p.m., electricity connection was not necessary. The hill would be damaged if road, drinking water supply and toilet were granted, hence the same should not be granted.
However, for drinking water supply, the temple should carry water manually and duly instruct the devotees who visit Kasi Vishwanathar Temple to carry water on their own. Likewise, the dargah should carry water manually and also duly instruct the devotees to carry water on their own.
For any construction or renovation work at the dargah, the Managing Trustee should approach the Archaeological Department. The authorities were directed to allow the department to survey the hill, demarcate the protected monuments, the dargah, the temple and note all physical features along with measurements. The exercise should be completed in one year and a report should be submitted to the court, the judge directed.
'In light of the difference of opinion that has arisen on the legal issue, place the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders,' the court directed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
26 minutes ago
- The Hindu
The medical boundaries for AYUSH practitioners
The recent controversy on X between a hepatologist and an Indian chess Grand Master, on whether practitioners of traditional medicine can claim to be doctors, has sparked much commentary on the role and the status of practitioners of traditional Indian medicine systems such as Ayurveda and Unani, in India. Committees, governments, perspectives The burning issue here is not merely whether practitioners of Ayurveda can refer to themselves as doctors, but rather the scope of medical activities permitted under Indian law. This is an issue which has consequences for public health. A starting point for this discussion is to understand the framing of the debate over the last 80 years, beginning 1946, when the Health Survey and Development Committee, better known as Bhore Committee, batted in favour of modern scientific medicine based on evidence. The committee had pointed out that other countries were in the process of phasing out their traditional medicine systems and recommended that states take a call on the extent to which traditional medicine played a role in their public health systems. The Bhore committee's lack of enthusiasm for the traditional medicinal system did not go unnoticed by practitioners of traditional Indian medicine who mounted a vocal protest. They managed to convince the Government of India to set up the Committee on Indigenous Systems of Medicine, which submitted its report in 1948. This committee unabashedly wrapped up its conclusions in communal language, framing the issue in terms of Hindu nationalism by linking Ayurveda to the Vedas and its decline to 'foreign domination'. While the Nehru government took no action to formally recognise these practitioners of traditional medicine, the Indira Gandhi government in 1970 enacted a legislation called The Indian Medicine Central Council Act recognising and regulating the practitioners of Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani. This law was replaced in 2020 with a new law called The National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act. The syllabus for aspiring practitioners of Ayurveda is an absolute mish-mash of concepts that span everything from doshas, prakriti, atmas (which includes learning the difference between paramatma and jivatma) with a sprinkling of modern medical concepts such as cell physiology and anatomy. These are irreconcilable concepts — the theory of tridosha attributes all ills to an imbalance of doshas, while modern medicine locates the concepts of some diseases such as infections in 'germ theory', among others. There is no middle ground between both systems of medicine which is why concepts such as integrative medicine make no sense. Point of friction Nevertheless, the legal recognition of this new class of practitioners led to questions on the exact boundaries between the practice of traditional and modern medicine. The major point of friction has been the prescription of modern medicines by the practitioners of traditional medicine. Ayurvedic practitioners, in particular, while claiming the superiority of their art over modern medicine, have consistently demanded the right to prescribe modern medicines developed by evidence-based modern science. Pertinently, this dispute revolved around the interpretation of Rule 2(ee) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 which defined the class of 'registered medical practitioners' who can prescribe modern medicine. This definition is complicated since it is not limited to doctors with a MBBS degree. It delegates a certain amount of power to State governments to pass orders declaring medical practitioners on their State medical registers as persons 'practising the modern scientific system of medicine for the purposes of ….' the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. Many State governments have used this power under Rule 2(ee) to allow registered practitioners of Ayurveda and Unani to prescribe modern medicine such as antibiotics. The constitutionality of these orders was challenged before the courts and the first round of litigation concluded in 1998 with the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand & Ors vs The State Of Punjab & Ors. The Court concluded that 'the right to prescribe drugs of a system of medicine would be synonymous with the right to practise that system of medicine. In that sense, the right to prescribe allopathic drug cannot be wholly divorced from the claim to practice allopathic medicine'. Simply put, Ayurvedic practitioners had no right to prescribe modern medicine. That judgment never stopped the lobbying by Ayurvedic and Unani practitioners with State governments for the promulgation of orders under Rule 2(ee) allowing them to prescribe modern medicine. Several State governments have continued passing these orders in defiance of the Court's judgment. This inevitably leads to litigation before the High Courts, usually by the Indian Medical Association, which often wins these cases. Unsuspecting patients too have often sued practitioners of Ayurveda before consumer courts on the grounds that they were deceived into believing that they were being treated by a doctor with a MBBS degree who can prescribe modern medicine. While much of the litigation has revolved around the right to dispense modern medicine, there is also the issue regarding the medical procedures that can be conducted legally by practitioners of Ayurveda and Unani. For example, can a registered Ayurvedic practitioner 'intubate' a patient? This is an important question to ask since it is an open secret that many hospitals purporting to practise modern medicine are hiring Ayurvedic practitioners with Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) degree at lower pay in place of graduates with a MBBS degree. Further, a notification by the Indian government in 2020 has allowed Ayurvedic practitioners (post graduates) to perform 58 minor surgeries, including the removal of the gall bladder, appendix and benign tumours. The constitutionality of this notification is pending before the courts. If the notification is upheld, the question that arises is whether these Ayurvedic practitioners can now use anaesthetic agents and antibiotics required to conduct surgeries. The stakes are high for public health in India since the likely strategy of Ayurvedic practitioners will be to argue that these surgeries were known in traditional Indian medicine. In these times of heady Hindutva, it will be difficult to find a judge who will ignore these claims. The political factor The larger political backdrop to this entire debate regarding Ayurvedic practitioners is 'Hindu pride', which has fuelled claims of fantastical achievements by ancient Indian civilisation, be it the pushpaka vimana or the claims of the Kauravas being test tube babies. When a policy issue such as Ayurveda is cynically draped in the language of 'Hindu pride', it is not just the Bharatiya Janata Party but also the Indian National Congress which feels compelled to support an obviously dangerous approach to public health. The last election manifesto of the Indian National Congress, in 2024, promised that the party would 'support' all systems of medicines instead of a promise to support only rational, evidence-based medicine. This blind faith in traditional medicine is going to cost every citizen in the future since the government is actively considering the inclusion of AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy) treatments under the Ayushman Bharat insurance scheme funded by tax-payers. This is in addition to approximately ₹20,000 crore of tax-payer money spent on research councils functioning under the Ministry of AYUSH with a mandate to research AYUSH. They have very little to show for in terms of scientific breakthroughs. Twitter outrage notwithstanding, the joke at the end of the day is on the tax-payer. Dinesh S. Thakur is the author of 'The Truth Pill: The Myth of Drug Regulation in India'. Prashant Reddy T. is the coauthor of 'The Truth Pill: The Myth of Drug Regulation in India'
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
DMK govt persecuting Hindu leaders: Raja
1 2 Madurai: Calling the DMK govt 'strongly anti-Hindu,' senior BJP leader H Raja alleged on Monday that it was targeting Hindu religious leaders and supporters using police, as seen in the recent case of Madurai Adheenam. Raja led a demonstration by BJP cadres in Madurai on Monday evening near Jhansi Rani Park, in support of the 293rd pontiff of Madurai Adheenam, Sri La Sri Harihara Sri Gnana Sambandha Desika Swamigal. The seer was recently subjected to inquiry by Chennai cyber crime police for his alleged communal remarks following a road accident at Ulundurpet on May 2. Raja said the DMK govt was reacting to anything and everything out of fear. "They will be out of power in 2026 for sure. So, they are needlessly waging a war against Hindu society and religion, and showing their anti-Hindu stance by actions such as this and persecuting Hindu religious leaders who do not favour them. They are using police as a tool for it," he said. Saying that the Adheenam was subjected to inquiry even as he was recovering from a surgery, Raja said the Stalin govt was acting like a 'Taliban' govt.
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
True impact of NEP to be visible after 15yrs: Ex-UGC secy
Indore: True impact of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 will be visible only after 15 years, when a student who has followed NEP from foundational stages through higher education completes their academic journey, said former University Grants Commission (UGC) secretary and Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya senior professor Rajnish Jain on Monday, a day before the policy will complete five years. "The implementation of NEP 2020 has been done to a great extent in Madhya Pradesh. Major reforms under NEP in MP include introduction of four-year UG programmes and incorporation of Indian knowledge system in higher education. In the next 15 years, the impact of NEP 2020 will be visible among the youth of the country," said Jain. MP was the first state in the country to implement NEP 2020 and Jain was the UGC secretary when it was rolled out. Jain identified five major challenges that continue to hinder full-scale implementation of NEP 2020. "The wide diversity of educational institutions across rural and urban regions poses a structural challenge. Limited infrastructure, financial constraints, and an inadequate number of trained faculty remain persistent issues," he said. "MP will have to develop physical and IT infrastructure required for NEP. Additionally recruitment of faculty and principals of colleges is key for implementation of NEP. Many colleges and universities lack the required number of teachers in MP," he added. Drawing from his experience as UGC secretary during NEP's launch, he proposed a strategic roadmap centred around five key areas. First, he stressed the need for substantial funding to improve infrastructure across academic, IT, and research domains. Second, he called for focused recruitment and capacity building of teachers with training in curriculum development, pedagogy, technology, Indian knowledge systems, and NEP specific modules. Third, he said that expanding innovative skill-based, vocational and technology-driven programmes at undergraduate and postgraduate levels is essential. Leadership development and IT-enabled governance were identified as the fourth focus area. He advocated for establishment of fully functional NEP implementation cells at the state, university, and college levels. Jain concluded that the next phase of NEP demands integrated efforts across govt bodies and educators.
