1. Reasonable and non-arbitrary.

2. Intelligible differentia and rational nexus are present.

3. TRISCO is not a ‘state’.

1. Reasonable and non-arbitrary – It is humbly submitted that Art. 14 of the Constitution

of Kadia envisages equal protection or equal treatment in similar circumstances. 1 Art.
14 is a basic structure.2 The requirement of the validity of a law with reference to Art.
14 is that it should not be arbitrary and classification should be reasonable.3
Equality is one of the magnificent corner stones of Indian democracy. 4 The underlying
object of Article 14 is to secure to all persons, citizens or non-citizens, the equality of
status and opportunity referred to in the Preamble to our Constitution. 5 According to
Article 7 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR), All are equal before the
law and are entitiled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are
entitled to equal protection against discrimination in violation of this Declaration and
against any incitement to such discrimination.6
A basic and obvious test to be applied in cases where administrative action is attacked as
arbitrary is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned
action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness. 7
In the present case, the action of TRISCO is reasonable and non-arbitrary as it is not a state
and a trust based on SONDHEIM religion, so it may classify its members as per the beliefs of
the religion and if any act is against the basic tents of their religious beliefs, then classifying
its members on that basis would be a reasonable classification and would not violate Article
14.
The Dharma Sastras’ view of homosexuality is one of taboo; a man who engages in
same sex activity is to be punished, however slightly, for the transgression.8

1
Tinkushia Electric Supply Co. v. State Of Ass. , AIR 1990 SC 123.
2
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225; Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 Supp.
SCC 1.
3
Soma Chakravorthy v. C.B.I., (2007) 5 SCC 403, 411.
4
THOMMEN, J., in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 : 1992 Supp (3) SCC
212.
5
Natural Resources Allocation, In Re Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1
6
Article 7,UDHR, https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
7
Union of India v. International Trading Co., (2003) 5 SCC 437 : AIR 2003 SC 3983.
8
Hrodrigues, SEXUALITY IN HINDUISM, http://www.mahavidya.ca/2016/04/26/sexuality-in-hinduism/
 According to Yajnavalkya Smriti, “Participating in sexual intercourse for the purpose
of procreation is an obligatory duty. It becomes evil only when it is used for personal
and selfish enjoyment.”9
Therefore, adultery and homosexuality are against the beliefs of SONDHEIM religion,
therefore, the classification is reasonable.

2. Intelligible differentia and rational nexus are present.

Article 14 forbids class legislation but does not forbid reasonable classification. It is
submitted that in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sh. Triloki Nath Khosa
and Ors.10, it was noted that intelligible differentia and rational nexus are the twin
tests of reasonable classification.
In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be
fulfilled, filled namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others
left out of the group and, (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the
object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.11
But, in the present case, the classification is based on an intelligible differentia and
has a rational nexus too, because firstly, homosexuality and adultery are against the
religious beliefs of SONDHEIM religion and secondly, adultery as a criminal offence,
punishes the man who has sex with the wife of other man, but as per the religious
beliefs of SONDHEIM religion, both man and woman are punishable for adultery and
hence, without discriminating on the basis of sex, TRISCO has acted reasonably and
has refused the membership of both, Mr. Shresth and Mrs. Ruby.
3. TRISCO is not a state –
According to Article 14 of the Constitution of Kadia,
“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of
the laws within the territory of India.”12
But, in the present case, as proved in the 1 st issue, TRISCO is not a ‘state’, therefore,
Article 14 does not apply to TRISCO.

9
Jayaram V, HINDUISM AND HOMOSEXUALITY, https://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_homosex.asp
10
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sh. Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors., (1974) 1 SCC 19
11
 Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Ors, [1959]1SCR279.
12
Article 14, Constitution of India.