Explanation:

Prof. Upendra baxi Vs State of  UP (unreported)

In Dr. Upendra Baxi v. State of U.P. 20, the Supreme Court entertained a letter sent by two professors of Delhi University seeking enforcement of the constitutional rights of the inmates of a Protective Home at Agra who were living in inhuman and degrading conditions. 
The rule of law does not mean that the protection of the law must be available only to a fortunate few or that the law should be allowed to be prostituted by the vested interests for protecting and upholding the status quo under the guise of enforcement of their civil and political rights. The poor too have civil and political rights and rule of law is meant for them also, though today it exists only on paper and not in reality. If the sugar barons and the alcohol kings have the fundamental right to carry on their business and to fatten their purses by exploiting the consuming public, have the chamars belonging to the lowest strata of society no fundamental right to earn an honest living through their sweat and toil?
Thus the court was willing to acknowledge that it had a mandate to advance the rights of the disadvantaged and poor, though this might be at the behest of individuals or groups who themselves claimed no disability. Such litigation, termed Public Interest Litigation or Social Action Litigation by its foremost advocate, Professor Upendra Baxi, has given the court epistolary jurisdiction.

Hence option 2nd is correct.