In July 2016, when a 13-year-old girl and her mother filed an FIR alleging that they had been gang-raped by a group of criminals on NH-91 in Bulandsheher, Uttar Pradesh, the then Cabinet Minister of the State, Azam Khan made a statement terming it a ‘political conspiracy against the State Government’. In August 2016, the victims approached the Supreme Court and filed a writ petition, seeking action against the minister for making such remarks about the incident. While the Court framed a wide range of issues in the petition ranging from collective responsibility of Ministers to the concept of Constitutional Torts, the scope of the present paper is only restricted to the conflict between the speech of elected representatives and individual dignity. Through the course of this paper, we try to determine the idea of individual dignity and use it to argue that the speech-acts of elected representatives should be restricted when they violate the two fundamental parameters of individual dignity embedded in the Constitution. It has been argued by the petitioners and the Amicus Curiae that Article 19(1)(a) rights can be restricted beyond Article 19(2) by Article 21 if they violate individual dignity. Contrastingly, through this paper, we shall be arguing that not only can the fundamental parameters of individual dignity be read into Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, but they can withstand the rigorous standard of Constitutional scrutiny as well.