Supreme Court terms Madras HC order 'balanced', says Muslims can offer prayers only during Ramzan, Bakrid on Thiruparankundram hill

Apex court refuses to interfere with Madras High Court judgment regarding Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah and Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple on the Thiruparankundram hill

The Supreme Court of India has refused to interfere with the Madras High Court judgment regarding the Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah and the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple on the Thiruparankundram hills in Madurai, Tamil Nadu, terming it "balanced".

The apex court on February 9 held that Muslims have no right to conduct any prayers except during Ramzan and Bakrid at the Nellithoppu area, the 33 cent of which is owned by the Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah atop the Thiruparankundram hills.

The High Court, in its October 2025 judgment, had also ruled that animal sacrifice cannot be permitted in the area.

A worshipper at the dargah, M Imam Hussain, had approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's verdict.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice P B Varale termed the High Court order balanced and refused to interfere with it.

The apex court was hearing a plea which challenged the high court's order, claiming that it violated the fundamental right to freedom of religion.

Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, said there had never been a law and order problem in the area, to which the bench said that there would not have been a peace committee meeting in the absence of such a problem.

"It seems to be a very balanced order...We do not propose to interfere with the order. Without expressing any opinion on the rights of the parties, the impugned order stands upheld," the bench said.

The Madras High Court had permitted prayers and gatherings in the Nellithoppu area during Bakrid and Ramzan, subject to the condition that it did not affect the traditional footsteps belonging to the Subramaniya Swamy temple.

It had, however, said that animal sacrifice, cooking, carrying and serving of non-vegetarian food cannot be permitted until a decision was made by the competent civil court.