Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, addressing a law school convocation, urged graduates to acquire knowledge, question injustice, and drive change exclusively through constitutional means. He cautioned against extrajudicial methods and vigilantism, emphasising that the Constitution provides sufficient tools — petitions, public interest litigation, and legislative advocacy — to challenge unjust laws and state action. He framed constitutional literacy as a civic duty, not merely a professional skill, essential for sustaining India's democratic and rights-based framework.

The CJI's address touches a foundational constitutional doctrine: the exhaustion of constitutional remedies before resorting to any other form of resistance. This principle is rooted in Articles 32 and 226 — the twin pillars of constitutional remedies in India.

Article 32 (Dr. Ambedkar called it 'the heart and soul of the Constitution') gives every citizen the right to move the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Article 226 gives High Courts wider writ jurisdiction, covering not just Fundamental Rights but any legal right. Together, they make India's constitutional framework a self-correcting system: injustice is meant to be remedied from within, not outside, the legal order.

The doctrine of constitutional remedies also underlies Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which the Supreme Court developed in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) and Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) to lower the threshold of locus standi — allowing any public-spirited person to approach courts on behalf of those unable to do so. This dramatically expanded access to constitutional justice.

The CJI's warning against extrajudicial methods also implicates Article 19(1)(a)–(b) — the rights to speech and peaceful assembly — and their reasonable restrictions under Articles 19(2)–(3). The State may restrict these rights, but citizens must use them within constitutional limits. Mob justice, vigilantism, or violent protest falls outside these protections entirely.

For CLAT PG, the examiner will likely test the interplay between constitutional remedies, PIL standing, and the limits of rights under Part III. For UPSC, the focus will be on the exact articles, landmark cases, and the structural distinctions between Articles 32 and 226.