According to Karl Marx’s theory known as the alienation theory developed in his early works such as “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844”, through the process of capitalization man is estranged from his species being. Marx argues that under capitalism, workers are alienated in four principal ways: from the goods produced by labor, from labor, from man’s own self, and from fellow men. This alienation originates from the fact that in capitalist economies the means of production are capitalistic and are owned by capitalists who prescribe the conditions and manner in which work is accomplished. Thus, employees create objects that are not their property and do not belong to them, which results in a feeling of alienation from one’s work. The standardized and even experimental characteristics of much capitalist work elicits workers still further from actual working activity to regard labor as a mere subsistence necessity.

According to Marx, another way is how capitalism estranges a person from his/her humanity by converting human talent to mere merchandise. It brings about the suppression of human potential which leads to frustration and total alienation from one’s core identity. Also related to this category, competition is encouraged and this leads to formation of skeletal relationships at the workplace leaving the workers isolated from their fellow workers. Altogether, although Marx’s theory provides a strong discursive condemnation of the degradative effects of capital, it has been argued to potentially over-romanticise pre-capitalist societies and under-estimate workers’ volition to act within the capitalist economy. Nevertheless, the idea of alienation helps explain other consequences reflecting psychological and social effects of capitalist employment relations.

Indeed, Indian constitutional law has made the difficult task of reconciling fundamental rights with directive principles of state policy (DPSPs) very difficult. While the DPSPs in Part IV of the Constitution are non-justiciable principles intended to ensure social and economic justice, the Fundamental Rights, which are enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, are subject to court action and enforcement.

In a landmark decision in Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras (1951), the Supreme Court ruled that DPSPs superseded Fundamental Rights in the event of a dispute. The enforcement of Fundamental Rights was highlighted in this ruling over the aspirational DPSPs.

The Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, on the other hand, caused a paradigm shift in constitutional law. The Supreme Court established the concept of the “basic structure” of the document, stating that certain essential elements of the Constitution, such as the Fundamental Rights, are unchangeable through amendment. This case also highlighted the need to work towards harmonising DPSPs and Fundamental Rights, even though they cannot supersede one another.

This equilibrium was further supported by the Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) case. The Court ruled that the fundamental framework of the Constitution requires harmony and balance between the two, and thus struck down amendments that attempted to give DPSPs precedence over Fundamental Rights.

In the end, the Supreme Court demonstrated a sophisticated approach where both sets of principles were harmonised to achieve social justice when it affirmed reservations in government posts (a DPSP) as not violating the equality clause (a Fundamental Right) in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992).

To put it simply, the judiciary has always worked to find a middle ground between protecting fundamental rights and gradually achieving the objectives outlined in the DPSPs.