Prohibition and Exceptions of Forced Labor

Evidence 1 and Inference 1 are coherent. Article 23 is uniquely enforceable against private individuals. Evidence 2 and Inference 2 are contradictory. The specific constitutional nuance is that the State is NOT bound to pay for compulsory public service. The correct counterpart is the lack of mandatory compensation for state conscription. Evidence 3 and Inference 3 are coherent. Article 23(2) explicitly forbids discrimination on the grounds of 'religion, race, caste or class' when imposing compulsory service.

The Assertion is correct. Unpaid military conscription is constitutional. Reason (R1) is true and correctly explains the assertion. Article 23(2) is the specific clause enabling this. Reason (R2) is factually false. Fundamental Rights are not automatically voided during conflicts (they require specific emergency proclamations), and the conscription exception exists permanently within the text of Article 23. The correct counterpart is the permanent nature of the exception.

Statement 1 is incorrect. Article 23 explicitly prohibits discrimination based on 'class' when imposing compulsory service. The correct counterpart is the strict non-discrimination rule for conscription. Statement 2 is incorrect. The state is NOT bound to pay for compulsory public service. The correct counterpart is the legality of unpaid state service. Statement 3 is correct. It accurately identifies that the unpaid service itself is legal, but the class-based exemption makes the policy unconstitutional.

Statement 1 is incorrect. It operates horizontally against private citizens. The correct counterpart is its horizontal application. Statement 2 is correct. This is the Article 23(2) exception. Statement 3 is incorrect. Discrimination based on religion, race, caste, or class is explicitly forbidden here. The correct counterpart is the prohibition of religious discrimination. Statement 4 is correct. 'Begar' is explicitly targeted by the text. Thus, exactly two statements are correct.