Article 19 (the right to freedom of speech and expression), Article 21 (the right to life and liberty) and Article 14 (the right to equality) of the Indian Constitution, 1950, are collectively called the ‘golden triangle’. The said provisions are used to challenge the constitutionality of various legislations that tend to infringe on Part III rights. This paper deals with the application of the aforesaid articles under the fundamental rights jurisprudence. It argues that the practice of reading Article 19 conjunctively with Articles 14 and 21 leads to neglection of consideration of the specific grounds on which Article 19 may be restricted, since that requirement is not present for laws restricting Article 14 or Article 21. This article substantiates this through an empirical analysis  of all decisions between January 31, 2021, till August 31, 2022, involving Articles 14, 19 and 21. The result of the empirical analysis is that whenever Articles 14 and/or Article 21 are invoked, the probability of considering the specific exception grounds to Article 19 is reduced, which militates against the legal mandate. The normative significance of the said finding is that a conjunctive reading increases the probability of a rights-infringing law to pass the constitutional threshold, going against the Indian constitutional ethos. Therefore, this paper calls for a consideration of the exception grounds of Article 19 separate from the reasonability requirements under Articles 14, 19 and 21 read conjunctively.