A group of activists based in Madurai have formed a group called ‘Madurai social harmony group’ to maintain the peace at Thirupparankundram hill, which has been turned into a site for communal polarisation. The group has alleged that those affiliated to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) are attempting to create unrest in Thirupparankundram ahead of the Assembly elections in 2026. Communal tensions have been simmering in Thirupparankundram for the past few weeks, with the hill housing both Tirupparankundram Subramaniyaswamy temple and the Sulthan Sikkandhar Avulia Dargah. Here is all that happened in the controversy:
What is the controversy about
The Thirupparankundram hillock is considered to be one of the abodes of Hindu god Lord Murugan. It also has a dargah located at the top of it. On January 18, controversy erupted after the police stopped Muslims from carrying out animal sacrifice at the dargah for the annual festival. Even as they had petitioned the collector to allow for the annual rituals to be conducted as usual, the festivities began and the Muslim groups were barred from bringing goats or chickens for sacrifice. However, prayers were permitted at the dargah.
On January 22, Ramanathapuram MP K Navas Kani visited the hillock and discussed the issue with the district officials and the police. He stated that the district administration and police are not permitting animal sacrifice at the hillock but cooked meat-based dishes are allowed. He also posted photos of the visit and people eating at the hillock.
It became a controversy after BJP president K Annamalai reposted the photos and alleged that the MP was provoking Hindus and threatening communal harmony by having non-vegetarian food.
Soon after this, BJP and right-wing groups began protesting over the animal sacrifice at the hillock and it soon became a row over land ownership. Several groups started alleging that there is an attempt to rename the hillock into Sikkandher Malai.
On January 27, a petition was submitted to the district collector by the residents to stopt external groups from interfering with local practices. On January 30, a peace meeting was held with residents, representatives from all political parties, including the Congress, DMK, AIADMK, VCK, IUML and others. An agreement was made to uphold the long-standing religious practices. However, AIADMK was the only party to not sign the agreement.
Following this, on February 4, Hindu Munnani sought permission to conduct a protest ‘Save the hill, preserve the sanctity of Thirupparankundram’. However, permission was denied for the protest, following which the groups approached the Madurai bench of Madras High Court.
On February 3, Madurai district administration imposed prohibitory orders across the district, including in Madurai city limits, from 6 am on February 3 until 12 pm on February 4. However, the HC granted permission to Hindu Munnani to hold a demonstration at Palanganatham junction, five kilometres from the temple premises. A bench of Justices G Jayachandran and R Poornima, however, ordered that no provocative slogans should be raised.
What did the Madurai social harmony group say
In a press release, the Madurai social harmony group has said that the coexistence of the temple and the dargah is an example of religious harmony and fraternity in the state. “For centuries, Tamil society has seen Hindus worshiping Lord Murugan and both Hindus and Muslims offering prayers at the dargah, living together peacefully without any conflict. However, in a sudden turn of events, organisations like the BJP, RSS, Hindu Munnani, and Sangh Parivar are attempting to disrupt this harmony by creating conflicts around the Sikandar Badhusha mosque,” they said and alleged that people from outside the town are brought in to incite unrest.
The group also alleged that the BJP was causing religious polarisation ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections and demanded that the government should take legal action under UAPA and other relevant laws to prevent communal violence in Tirupparankundram.
Further, the group also pointed out that there were clear judicial rulings regarding the ownership and rights of the dargah. Speaking to TNM, High Court advocate S Vanchinathan, who is part of the group, said that a legal ruling was passed in 1923 affirming the ownership rights of the mosque and its surroundings to the Muslim community while confirming the temple's rights over other parts of the hill. “The Privy Council upheld this ruling in 1931, confirming that the mosque and its flagstaff, along with certain steps leading to it, legally belong to the Muslim community. This was later reaffirmed by a 1978 ruling from the Madurai court, which stated that the entire space on the top of the hill where the mosque is located belongs to the Muslim community. Despite these legal rulings, Sangh Parivar groups are spreading false claims to instigate tensions. They have misrepresented historical facts, claiming that the mosque was recently established. However, for over 200 years, both Hindus and Muslims have worshiped at Tirupparankundram without religious conflict. The tradition of making offerings, including goats and roosters, to deities like Karuppan and Sudalaimadan has been an integral part of Tamil culture,” he said.
The Privy Council ruling
The case dates back to 1923, when the issue was first brought up before a trial court (subordinate judge of Madura, as it was then called). There were three parties in the case:
Tirupparankundram temple, which claimed ownership over the entire hill, except for cultivated lands and the mosque area;
Muslims who claimed ownership over the mosque site and a portion of the hill called Nellitope; and
The British Government (Secretary of State for India in Council), who claimed that the unoccupied portions of the hill – poramboke land – were government property.
In August 1923, the subordinate judge of Madura, ruled in favour of the temple. The court upheld the temple's ownership, except for Nellitope, the mosque area, and the steps leading to the mosque. The Muslims were recognised as the rightful owners of the mosque and Nellitope. The British Government’s claim over unoccupied portions of the hill was dismissed.
The Muslims appealed the decision at the Madras High Court. In 1926, there was a one-day hearing of the case, and the court agreed that both Hindus and Muslims had certain rights to the hill. However, it reversed the subordinate judge’s ruling and held that the ownership belonged to the government.
Challenging this order, the temple approached the Privy Council, which was a powerful advisory body to the British monarch and served as the highest court of appeal for many colonies, including India, before independence. After India’s independence in 1947, its authority was abolished in 1949, and the Supreme Court of India became the country’s highest judicial body.
In 1931, the Privy Council passed an elaborate order after tracing the history of the hillock, the temple and the mosque. The Privy Council overturned the High Court’s ruling and restored the subordinate judge’s decision. The temple was recognized as the rightful owner of the unoccupied portions of the hill, and the mosque and flagstaff area were confirmed as belonging to the Muslim community. The British Government’s argument that unoccupied lands naturally belonged to the Crown was dismissed.