Examine the constitutional meaning, scope and legal implications of the term 'begar' as prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.

Answer 6A(iv) According to Article 23(1), traffic in human beings, begar, and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. Article 23(1) proscribes three unsocial practices, viz., (1) begar; (2) traffic in human beings; and (3) forced labour. The term 'begar' means compulsory work without any payment. Begar is labour or service which a person is forced to give without receiving any remuneration for it. Withholding of pay of a government employee as a punishment has been held to be invalid in view of Article 23 which prohibits begar. 'To ask a man to work and then not to pay him any salary or wages savours of begar. It is a Fundamental Right of a citizen of India not to be compelled to work without wages.' (Suraj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1960 MP 303). The expression 'traffic in human beings,' commonly known as slavery, implies the buying and selling of human beings as if they are chattels, and such a practice is constitutionally abolished. The words 'other similar forms of forced labour' in Article 23(1) are to be interpreted ejusdem generis. The kind of 'forced labour' contemplated by the Article has to be something in the nature of either traffic in human beings or begar. The prohibition against forced labour is made subject to one exception. Under Article 23(2), the State can impose compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them. The State may thus exempt women from compulsory service for that will be discrimination on the ground of sex and this has not been forbidden by Article 23(2). The Supreme Court has given an expansive significance to the term "forced labour" used in Art. 23(1) in a series of cases beginning with the Asiad case in 1982. (People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473). The Court has insisted that Article 23 is intended to abolish every form of forced labour even if it has origin in a contract. Article 23 strikes at forced labour in whatever form it may manifest itself, because it is violative of human dignity and is contrary to the basic human values. In Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan, 1983, SCR (2) 271 case, it was held that when a person provides labour or service to another for remuneration which is less than the prescribed minimum wages, the labour so provided clearly falls within the ambit of the words 'forced labour' under Article 23. The rationale adopted was that when someone works for less than the minimum wages, the presumption is that he or she is working under some compulsion. Hence it was held that such a person would be entitled to approach the higher judiciary under writ jurisdiction (Article 226 or Article 32) for the enforcement of fundamental rights which include the payment of minimum wages.