Restrictions imposed on Annadhanam offered at Palani Dhandayuthapani Swamy temple

Case Summary
On January 22, 2025, Tamil Nadu authorities imposed stringent restrictions on Hindus wishing to offer Annadhanam (food offerings) at the Palani Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple on the Thiruparankundram hill. Devotees intending to distribute food during the Thaipoosam festival would be required to obtain prior permission from the Food Safety Department in Dindigul or face a fine of ₹1,000. Additionally, the use of plastic bags was prohibited, and the areas where food was served had to be cleaned afterwards. These measures were seen as a significant restriction on the religious practices of Hindus, who traditionally offer food to other pilgrims during the festival, starting from February 11. At the same time, the Tamil Nadu police allowed Muslims to bring cooked meat, consume it, and pray at the site. The police justified this by maintaining that only cooked meat and no live animals could be brought to the hill. Indian Union Muslim League MP Nawaz Kani sought to lift these restrictions, suggesting that the Murugan Temple and the Dargah could peacefully coexist, similar to other religious sites in India. He argued that the temporary ban on animal sacrifices should be reversed. However, BJP Tamil Nadu chief K Annamalai criticized Kani's stance, saying it would disturb the religious harmony at the hill. He pointed out that while Hindus were being restricted in their religious offerings, Muslims were allowed to continue their practices without such limitations, further fueling the perception that Hindus were being unfairly treated.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added as a religiously motivated crime under the category of- Restriction/ban on Hindu practices and within this, the sub-category selected is- Administration restricting religious practices. In several cases, it is seen that the administration/state disallows a religious practice owing to prejudicial orders and concerns, targeted specifically against the Hindu community. Such restriction/prohibition would be considered documented as a hate crime because the orders are often a result of pressure by groups that harbour animosity towards Hinduism and Hindus. Often, the restriction by the authorities is driven by bias, hostility, or prejudice against the specific community being stopped from holding a religious practice, by pressure groups that harbour animosity towards Hindus, intrinsic to their faith. Since practices are intrinsic to the faith of the Hindus, such prejudicial restriction is considered a curtailing of the fundamental rights of the Hindu community. In several cases, for example, the authorities ban a Hindu religious practice due to pressure from groups opposed to the religion. In other instances the prohibition is selectively enforced against one religious group (Hindus) while others are allowed to proceed. There are still other cases where the authorities preemptively restrict a religious practice by Hindus because those who hold animosity towards Hindus may get “provoked” leading to them being violent, thereby assuaging the sentiments of those who hold animosity towards Hindus by curtailing the religious rights of Hindus. Such acts and orders are prejudiced, indicating discriminatory motives owing to the capitulation to groups that harbour animosity towards Hindus and therefore, would be categorized as a religiously motivated hate crime since the original pressure leading to the order itself is a result of hatred/bias/prejudice/religious hate against Hindus. The Tamil Nadu government imposed strict restrictions on Hindus offering Annadhanam (food offerings) at the Palani Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple on Thiruparankundram hill while permitting Muslims to bring cooked meat, consume it, and pray at the site. This disparity raises concerns about the government's responsibility to remain impartial and secular, as such actions create perceptions of favouritism toward certain groups, leading to feelings of religious bias and injustice among Hindus. Every individual has the right to celebrate their festivals and practice their religion freely. Imposing restrictions on these rights is seen as discriminatory and a denial of the fundamental rights of Hindus. As a result, the measures taken against Hindu devotees in this instance are classified as a religiously motivated hate crime, rooted in animosity toward Hindu beliefs and practices.

Case Status
Unknown

Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
State and Establishment
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
unknown