Overview The son of renowned rationalist Dr. Narendra Dabholkar , MANS activist Hamid Dabholkar , together with social activist Nandini Jadhav , has moved the Supreme Court to intervene in the pending review of the landmark 2018 judgment that struck down the ban on women’s entry to the Sabarimala temple . The intervention seeks dismissal of the review petitions and reaffirmation of the original decision. Key Developments Application filed by Hamid Dabholkar and Nandini Jadhav as interveners in the review proceedings. Petition urges the Court to apply the narrow scope of Article 137 and reject the review petitions. Emphasis on constitutional values: equality ( Article 14 ), dignity, fraternity and scientific temper . Argument against the “essential religious practices” doctrine, warning that the Court should not become a theological authority. Call to dismiss broader constitutional questions raised in the 2019 reference order, labeling them advisory and beyond the Court’s jurisdiction. Important Facts The 2018 Constitution Bench, comprising nine judges, held that excluding women aged 10‑50 from Sabarimala violated Article 14 , Article 15 , and was not protected under Article 25 . The review petitions argue that the original judgment erred in interpreting religious freedom, but the interveners contend that the judgment correctly identified menstruation‑based exclusion as sex discrimination. Dr. Dabholkar was assassinated in 2013, leading to Maharashtra’s Anti‑Superstition and Black Magic law, underscoring the link between rationalist activism and constitutional reform. UPSC Relevance Understanding this case helps aspirants grasp several core concepts of the Indian Constitution and its jurisprudence: Balancing equality with religious freedom . Interpretation of the “essential religious practices” doctrine and its limits. Scope of judicial review under Article 137 . Role of scientific temper in shaping public policy and legal discourse. Impact of civil‑society interventions on constitutional litigation. Way Forward The 9‑judge bench is scheduled to hear the matter on 7 April . If the Court dismisses the review petitions, the 2018 judgment will remain binding, reinforcing gender‑equality jurisprudence and limiting the scope of future challenges based on religious essentialism. Conversely, a reversal could reopen debates on the balance between personal law, religious practices, and constitutional rights, affecting future cases involving gender and religion. Aspirants should monitor the outcome as it will likely influence subsequent legislative and judicial approaches to similar disputes.