The subsequent case is based on the Sanatan Dharma related controversy of a statement made by the leader and Self-Financed Party-member Udhayanidhi Stalin on the 15th August 2024 that has sparked legal, political and social activism discussion across India. The minister in the Tamil Nadu state government and son of the incumbent CM M. K. Stalin, Udhayanidhi Stalin when addressing at an event used the most vicious form of slurs and categorised Sanatan Dharma like diseases which should be eliminated in the same way as dengue and malaria. Such comments were dubbed as unlawful and he was prosecuted for it; each of the Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh courts registered FIRs against him. That brings the legal question in its nutshell, as to what extent free speech is protected, particularly when it offends religious values. The Indian Constitution under the free speech and expression preview of right to freedom under article 19(1)(a). However, this right is not unrestricted and is thus proclaimed with reference to Article 19(2) that allows restrictions on grounds of public order, decency, morality, and contempt of any court, among others. Interpreting of Stalin’s comments has been seen as hate speech, possibly falling under section 295 A of the IPC which prohibits any “deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class.” Registration of FIRs under this section shows how sensitive the given remarks are in a country where religion is tantamount to personal and community identity. Another dimension of the conflict has emerged in the political one. The remarks were made in the context of the 2024 general elections and any political party from the left has either condemned Kiplagat’s statement as a form of hate speech or defended it depending on which side of the political divide one belongs to. In this context, the BJP and other affiliated organizations have jumped into the issue and painted it to be another assault on Hinduism and called for a stringent action against Stalin. On the other hand, the DMK, to which Stalin belongs, has supported his freedom of speech, and insisted on the remarks referring to what they consider as some unpleasant features of Sanatan Dharma. The row gives focus to the existing issue in India of free speech which is being on an ongoing discussion about freedoms and how they are limited which includes that relating to religious freedom. Concerning the legal cases to be brought against Stalin, the decisions could influence future experiences of India in a great way. It also has implication on roles of political leaders in a culturally diverse and religious society as well as impact of such rhetoric in a society. The case will be followed further, not only for legal trials but also their civic influence on the polity of India, especially in the election year.