Tirupparankundram row: Madras HC directs T.N. govt. not to let anyone disturb communal harmony

Madras High Court directed the TN government not to allow anyone to disturb the peace and harmony with which Hindus, Muslims, and Jains have been worshipping for decades in their respective places of worship at Thiruparankundram hill.

The Madras High Court on Friday (February 14, 2025) directed the Tamil Nadu government not to allow anyone to disturb the peace and harmony with which Hindus, Muslims, and Jains have been worshipping for decades in their respective places of worship at the Tirupparankundram hill in Madurai district.

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan wrote: “So far, Hindus, Muslims, and Jains have cohabited the hill, peacefully respecting the wishes of each other. In fact, unity in diversity is the strength of our nation, and the government has to maintain harmony among all the communities and religions.”

The judge agreed with State Public Prosecutor (SPP) Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, that permitting a procession in Chennai over a sudden controversy that had erupted over a dargah (mausoleum of a Muslim saint) situated atop the hill in Madurai could lead to unnecessary communal tensions.

Dismissing a writ petition filed by S. Yuvaraj of Bharat Hindu Munnani, who sought permission to take out a procession within the Flower Bazaar police station limits in Chennai, the judge ordered: “The government shall ensure that religious sentiments and beliefs of no community shall be harmed in any manner, and it should not allow anybody to affect the peace and harmony.” 

The writ petitioner had sought permission to take out a procession, carrying a vel (Lord Murugan’s lance), from Egambareswarar Temple to Sri Muthukumaraswamy Temple through Rasappa Street, Nainiyappa Street, Pethu Street, and Thanga Salai on February 18, 2025, to condemn the Muslims for claiming a right over the Tirupparankundram hill by calling it “Sikkandar hill” instead of its other name “Sri Kandar hill”. 

However, the SPP vehemently objected to the grant of permission for such a procession on the ground that the route proposed by the petitioner was a busy commercial area dotted with shops run by people from various communities and therefore, there was every likelihood of the event sparking communal tensions.

When the judge wanted to know whether the petitioner was willing to choose an alternative route, the latter did not accept it. On his part, Mr. Jinnah too said, the procession should not be permitted even in an alternative route since it would only end up kindling an issue that had already been well-settled by judicial fora as well as by executive magistrates.