Dabholkar’s Son Seeks Supreme Court Intervention to Uphold 2018 Sabarimala Gender‑Equality Verdict

<h3>Overview</h3> <p>The son of renowned rationalist <strong>Dr. Narendra Dabholkar</strong>, <span class="key-term" data-definition="Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti — A Maharashtra‑based NGO founded by Dr. Narendra Dabholkar to eradicate superstition and black magic; instrumental in drafting the state’s anti‑superstition law (GS2: Polity).">MANS</span> activist <strong>Hamid Dabholkar</strong>, together with social activist <strong>Nandini Jadhav</strong>, has moved the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — The apex judicial body with the power of constitutional review; its decisions shape Indian law and policy (GS2: Polity).">Supreme Court</span> to intervene in the pending review of the landmark 2018 judgment that struck down the ban on women’s entry to the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala temple — A prominent Hindu shrine in Kerala whose traditional practice barred women of menstruating age; central to a landmark Supreme Court judgment on gender equality (GS2: Polity).">Sabarimala temple</span>. The intervention seeks dismissal of the review petitions and reaffirmation of the original decision.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>Application filed by Hamid Dabholkar and Nandini Jadhav as interveners in the review proceedings.</li> <li>Petition urges the Court to apply the narrow scope of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 137 of the Indian Constitution — Provides the Supreme Court the power to review its own judgments under limited circumstances (GS2: Polity).">Article 137</span> and reject the review petitions.</li> <li>Emphasis on constitutional values: equality ( <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 14 of the Indian Constitution — Guarantees equality before law and equal protection of the laws; used to challenge discriminatory practices (GS2: Polity).">Article 14</span> ), dignity, fraternity and <span class="key-term" data-definition="Scientific temper — A constitutional duty (Article 51A(h)) encouraging rational inquiry, skepticism of superstition, and evidence‑based thinking; promoted by rationalist movements (GS2: Polity, GS4: Ethics).">scientific temper</span>.</li> <li>Argument against the “essential religious practices” doctrine, warning that the Court should not become a theological authority.</li> <li>Call to dismiss broader constitutional questions raised in the 2019 reference order, labeling them advisory and beyond the Court’s jurisdiction.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <ul> <li>The 2018 Constitution Bench, comprising nine judges, held that excluding women aged 10‑50 from <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala temple — A prominent Hindu shrine in Kerala whose traditional practice barred women of menstruating age; central to a landmark Supreme Court judgment on gender equality (GS2: Polity).">Sabarimala</span> violated <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 14 of the Indian Constitution — Guarantees equality before law and equal protection of the laws; used to challenge discriminatory practices (GS2: Polity).">Article 14</span>, <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 15 of the Indian Constitution — Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth (GS2: Polity).">Article 15</span>, and was not protected under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Indian Constitution — Secures freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity).">Article 25</span>. </li> <li>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.</li> <li>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.</li> </ul> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>Understanding this case helps aspirants grasp several core concepts of the Indian Constitution and its jurisprudence:</p> <ul> <li>Balancing <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 14 of the Indian Constitution — Guarantees equality before law and equal protection of the laws; used to challenge discriminatory practices (GS2: Polity).">equality</span> with <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Indian Constitution — Secures freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity).">religious freedom</span>.</li> <li>Interpretation of the “essential religious practices” doctrine and its limits.</li> <li>Scope of judicial review under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 137 of the Indian Constitution — Provides the Supreme Court the power to review its own judgments under limited circumstances (GS2: Polity).">Article 137</span>.</li> <li>Role of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Scientific temper — A constitutional duty (Article 51A(h)) encouraging rational inquiry, skepticism of superstition, and evidence‑based thinking; promoted by rationalist movements (GS2: Polity, GS4: Ethics).">scientific temper</span> in shaping public policy and legal discourse.</li> <li>Impact of civil‑society interventions on constitutional litigation.</li> </ul> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>The 9‑judge bench is scheduled to hear the matter on <strong>7 April</strong>. 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.</p>