As the Supreme Court put on hold the application of sedition law, Rijiju invoked “Lakshman Rekha” guiding different institutions, including the Executive and the Judiciary, and said no one should cross their “boundary”.

Reacting to his remarks, Chidambaram said the Law Minister of India has no authority to draw any “arbitrary Lakshman Rekha” and should read Article 13 of the Constitution.

“The Legislature cannot make a law, nor can a law be allowed to remain on the statute book, that violates the Fundamental Rights. The sedition law, in the view of many legal scholars, violates Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution,” the former Union minister said on Twitter.

“All the King’s horses and all the King’s men cannot save that law,” Chidambaram said in a swipe at the Centre.

On Wednesday, the Congress hailed the Supreme Court order putting on hold the sedition law, saying a clear cut message has gone to subjugators of dissent that “you can no longer suppress the voice of truth” and those critical of the government must be heard. 

With the Opposition targeting the Centre over the Supreme Court order, the BJP said the order must be viewed in the context of the overall positive suggestion of the government that it wishes to examine the matter which has been “duly accepted” by the court.

The Modi government took a “historic” decision to correct the blunder of previous Congress governments, the BJP said and alleged that other parties have abused the sedition law when in power.

In its significant order on the sedition law that has been under intense public scrutiny, a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said there was a need to balance the interest of civil liberties and the interests of citizens with that of the State. 

The bench, also comprising justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, stayed all proceedings in sedition cases while directing the Centre and states to not register any fresh FIR invoking sedition charges until the sedition law is “under reconsideration”.

The government in an earlier affidavit had said that it was willing to consider the issues involving the law.