The correct option is That the poor need a different kind of judicial approach to enforce their rights..
Explanation
The Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) is a landmark judgment in the evolution of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India. It addressed the issue of bonded labor and interpreted the scope of Article 32 of the Constitution, emphasizing that the Supreme Court has the power to forge new remedies and devise new strategies to enforce Fundamental Rights.
Analysis:
- That the poor need a different kind of judicial approach to enforce their rights. is Correct: In this case, the Supreme Court held that the traditional adversarial system of justice is ill-suited for the poor and disadvantaged. The Court asserted that when the poor approach the judiciary for the enforcement of their rights, the process should not be strictly adversarial. Instead, the Court adopted a more flexible, non-adversarial, and investigative approach. It established that under Article 32, the Court can appoint commissioners to investigate facts and gather evidence, thereby relieving the burden of proof from vulnerable petitioners who may lack the resources to produce evidence.
- The establishment of the collegium system. is Incorrect: The collegium system for the appointment of judges was established and evolved through the "Three Judges Cases" (specifically the Second Judges Case, 1993, and the Third Judges Case, 1998), not the Bandhua Mukti Morcha case.
- The definition of the powers of the President. is Incorrect: The definition of the powers of the President is primarily derived from the constitutional text and interpreted in cases such as Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974), unrelated to this specific PIL regarding bonded labor.
- The restriction on the scope of PILs. is Incorrect: Far from restricting the scope, this case significantly expanded the scope of PILs. It validated "epistolary jurisdiction," allowing the Court to treat simple letters as writ petitions to ensure access to justice for the marginalized.
Key Takeaway:
The Bandhua Mukti Morcha case established that under Article 32, the Supreme Court is not bound by rigid procedural technicalities or the adversarial system when enforcing the Fundamental Rights of the poor; it can adopt an investigative approach to ensure substantive justice.