Latest news with #SSrimathy
News18
26-06-2025
- News18
Madras High Court Delivers Split Verdict On Animal Sacrifice, Prayer Rights At Thiruparankundram Hill
Last Updated: The hill houses the famous Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, the Hazrat Sultan Sikandar Badusha Dargah, and remnants of Jain heritage In a significant judgment delivered on June 24, the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court gave a split verdict on a batch of six petitions involving religious and heritage rights at the historically and religiously significant Thiruparankundram Hill in Madurai. Justices J Nisha Banu and S Srimathy delivered separate and divergent opinions on three of the petitions concerning animal sacrifice, usage of nomenclature, and rights of access and prayer in a disputed area near the hilltop dargah. The Dispute The hill houses the famous Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple (one of the six sacred abodes of Lord Murugan), the Hazrat Sultan Sikandar Badusha Dargah, and remnants of Jain heritage. Several petitions were filed raising objections to practices such as animal sacrifice allegedly conducted by the Dargah, references to the hill as 'Sikkandar Malai" instead of 'Thiruparankundram Hill", and public Islamic prayers in the Nellithoppu area, claimed to be part of temple property. The Opinions of the Judges In the plea seeking a prohibition on animal sacrifice and serving of such food at the hilltop Dargah, Justice J Nisha Banu dismissed the petition, citing the historical coexistence of religious practices and noting that the Tamil Nadu law banning animal sacrifices had been repealed in 2004. She emphasised communal harmony and stated that the ritual was followed even in nearby Hindu temples. However, Justice S Srimathy allowed the petition, holding that there was no evidence proving animal sacrifice as an essential or ritualistic practice at the Dargah. She called the recent pamphlets announcing animal sacrifices 'mischievous" and directed that such activities be restrained unless the practice is judicially affirmed. In another plea raising objections to the Dargah's alleged rebranding of the hill as 'Sikkandar Malai" and seeking a ban on animal sacrifices, Justice Banu again dismissed the plea, emphasising the hill's multi-faith character and historical traditions. In contrast, Justice Srimathy allowed the petition, terming the usage of 'Sikkandar Malai" as unlawful and unauthorised. She noted that when the hill is named Thiruparankundram Hill, some persons claiming themselves as 'Madurai Muslim United Jamath and Political Party Organisation" had issued a pamphlet that they were going to conduct a feast in 'Madurai Thiruparankundram Sikandar Malai Hazrat Sikandar Badusha Pallivasal", which was definitely mischievous and an attempt to change the name of the hill. In the plea filed by a member of the Hindu Makkal Katchi, the petitioner objected to prayer gatherings conducted by the Dargah in the Nellithoppu area near the temple. Justice Banu held that such rights had already been settled in favour of the Dargah through civil court judgments and dismissed the petition. Justice Srimathy, however, found that no established prayer rights existed in Nellithoppu and allowed the petition. She held that the dargah did not have any such practice to conduct any prayer during Ramzan, Bakrid, or any other Islamic festival, and it was a new practice that could not be allowed. Both judges unanimously dismissed a petition by a Jain religious head seeking to declare the entire hill as 'Samanar Kundru" and a Jain site of national importance. The judges held that such declarations were outside the scope of a writ court and noted the issue was pending before the Supreme Court. They also dismissed the plea, which sought better civic amenities like drinking water and lighting, holding that the authorities had already addressed those concerns. In the plea filed by the managing trustee of the Dargah, both judges disposed of the petition with directions that authorities should not interfere with renovation or day-to-day administration of the Dargah, provided proper permissions were obtained. A recurring reference in the judgment was to a 1920 civil court decree (OS No. 4 of 1920) and its affirmation by the Privy Council in 1931. The decree granted ownership of most of the hill to the temple while reserving Nellithoppu and the mosque area for the Dargah. This historical adjudication formed the basis of Justice Banu's consistent position that the Dargah's rights are well-established. However, Justice Srimathy took the view that certain religious practices now asserted by the Dargah—like animal sacrifice and renaming the hill—were not covered by these old judgments and required fresh judicial scrutiny. Due to the conflicting verdicts in the three petitions, the matter has now been referred to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court for appropriate directions. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : Dargah madras high court temple First Published:
New Indian Express
25-06-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
No change in Tiruchendur Murugan temple consecration timings: Madras HC
MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has refused to interfere with the decision taken by an expert committee appointed by it to fix the time to conduct the consecration of Subramaniya Swamy temple in Tiruchendur. The committee, which consists of five persons who are experts in Agamic principles, had unanimously decided to conduct the ceremony between 6 am and 6.47 am. Disposing of two review applications filed against the order appointing the committee, a bench comprising justices S Srimathy and R Vijayakumar said the consecration would be conducted at the time chosen by the committee. However, the bench directed the temple authorities to henceforth follow the earlier procedure of seeking the opinion of the temple's Vidhayahar-authority responsible for choosing auspicious time for festivals, pujas, important events in temples- through written communication. Also, the judges directed the Vidhayahar to indicate in his reply documents or 'pattolai' whether the document is a draft one or it is the final opinion. The expert committee was appointed following a petition filed by R Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthrigal, who is the Vidhayahar of the temple, and the Subramaniya Swamy Thirukoil Swathanthira Paribalana Sthalathargal Saba, against 'inauspicious' timing chosen by the authorities.
Time of India
24-06-2025
- General
- Time of India
HC refuses to interfere with timings for Tiruchendur temple consecration
Madurai: Considering that court-appointed experts in agama principles had arrived at an opinion regarding the timings of the consecration of Subramanya Swamy Temple in Tiruchendur in Tuticorin district, which is to be held on July 7, Madras high court has observed that it was not inclined to interfere with the timings fixed by them. Earlier, public interest litigations were filed by R Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthrigal Vidhayahar and Sri Subramaniya Swamy Thirukoil Swathanthira Paribalana Sthalathargal Saba, seeking to fix the timings for the consecration of the Tiruchendur temple by following the ancient texts and literature. The court appointed a committee of experts to decide the timing. The petitioners filed review petitions seeking to review the earlier order passed by the court. A division bench of justice S Srimathy and justice R Vijayakumar observed that experts in the agama principles arrived at an opinion regarding the timings as 6am to 6.47am, and the court is not inclined to interfere with the said timings. The judges made it clear that the court was constrained to form an expert committee only because Vidhayahar of the temple gave three different Pattolais (Kumbabisheka Muhurtha Pattolais) without mentioning that the first two Pattolais are draft in nature. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo You Can Also Check: Madurai AQI | Weather in Madurai | Bank Holidays in Madurai | Public Holidays in Madurai The judges observed that considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the court upholds the formation of the expert committee and the timings fixed by them, and this should not be taken as a precedent in the future. Until a decision is rendered by a competent civil court, the supremacy of the Vidhayahar in relation to the religious matters of the temple has to be protected. Therefore, the temple is directed to follow the earlier procedure of seeking opinion from the Vidhayahar through written communication alone. The Vidhayahar shall indicate whether it is a draft or final Pattolai while giving opinion and fixing the timing, the judges observed and disposed of the review petitions. In addition, a public interest litigation petition filed by A Viyanarasu of Tuticorin district sought a direction to the authorities to conduct the consecration of Tiruchendur temple by using Tamil spiritual mantras and hymns equally. A division bench of justice S M Subramaniam and justice A D Maria Clete directed the case to be posted along with other similar petitions.
New Indian Express
22-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Madras HC forms panel to decide time for Tiruchendur temple consecration
MADURAI: After objections were raised over the date and time fixed for the consecration of Tiruchendur Subramaniya Swamy temple, the vacation bench of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on Wednesday appointed a five-member committee to take a fresh decision on the matter. A bench of justices S Srimathy and R Vijayakumar gave the direction while disposing of a batch of petitions filed claiming that the date and time (9 am to 10.30 am on July 7) allegedly chosen by the authorities was 'inauspicious'. They requested the court to direct the authorities to conduct the ceremony at 'Abhijith muhurtham' (between 12.05 pm and 12.45 pm) on the above date. The five-member committee includes one of the petitioners, Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthrigal, as well as Sabarimala Ayyappan Melsanthi (chief priest) and Pillaiyarpatti Pitchai Gurukkal. The committee could have a discussion and the majority decision could be finalised, the judges added. Subramaniya Sasthrigal said in his petition that he was responsible for fixing timings for poojas, festivals and all other events taking place in the Tiruchendur temple for the past 13 years. However, without consulting him, the temple authorities had chosen the date and time for the consecration, which is highly inauspicious and against the Agamas. Claiming that the ceremony is believed to be crucial for the welfare of the country, state and leaders and choosing an inauspicious time would have negative ramifications, he suggested the authorities change at least the timing to 'Abhijit Muhurtham'.
New Indian Express
11-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Madras HC lifts interim stay on release of NIRF rankings
MADURAI: Lifting the interim stay on the release of the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) rank list for this year, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently dismissed a PIL petition alleging malpractices and lack of transparency in its evaluation. The direction came after the union government stated that a scientific method prescribed by an expert body is being followed for publication of the NIRF rank list. A division bench of justices J Nisha Banu and S Srimathy passed the orders on the plea moved by C Chellamuthu of Dindigul who stated that the NIRF rankings are calculated merely based on the data provided by the educational institutions on their website without any verification or auditing.
