The Supreme Court of India is left with the decision on such a sensitive issue that bridges the issues of religious freedom, public order, and communal harmony. The case essentially raises the question of whether Jai Shri Ram hollered inside a mosque forms an offense under the law of India. This issue has significant legal, social as well as political implications from the point of view of the sensibility of religious sentiments in the country.The case that triggered the legal wrangle was in 2019 when a group of persons were accused to have trespassed into a mosque with people in the process of offering prayers and shouted "Jai Shri Ram." The whole incident sent the communal cauldron boiling, and the involved persons were put behind the bars under several sections of the Indian Penal Code like Sections 295A: Deliberate and Malicious Acts intended to Outrage Religious feelings and Section 153A: Promoting enmity between classes. This prayer moved to the court saying the shouting of the religious slogan was an exercise of right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Here, they pleaded that no such intention of provocation or disturbing communal harmony in the act. Complainants pleaded that it is a provocative act violating Article 25 right of their religious freedom and has breached the sanctity of a mosque. Legal Issues Before the Court Freedom of Speech vs. Religious Freedom: Whether chanting a slogan in a religious place of another faith constitutes a valid exercise of free speech or violative of religious freedom rights. Intent and Provocation: Whether the slogan of Jai Shri Ram was used with an intention to outrage or insult religious feelings of the Muslim community, that would bring it within the ambit of Sections 295A and 153A of the IPC. Public Order and Communal Harmony: Such acts will further be scrutinized as to whether they upset public order and tend to disturb the communal harmony; because, as the article enunciated under Article 19(2), maintaining peace is a constitutional obligation. Effect of Judgment This case would offer serious precedent in terms of boundaries in free speech and religion when the Supreme Court gives out its decision. A favorable verdict to the accused can be used to perform more defiant acts under the pretext of the freedom of religion, and vice versa, a judgment to this effect would be resented by the laws designed for the protection of religious locations even though they are in infringement of the right to free speech. The case is being followed throughout the country as it raises very basic questions on coexistence in a plural, multi-religious society. How constitutional freedoms and religious rights would be interpreted for years to come most certainly will be influenced by the ruling.