<P> The Kesavananda judgment also defined the extent to which Parliament could restrict property rights, in pursuit of land reform and the redistribution of large landholdings to cultivators, overruling previous decisions that suggested that the right to property could not be restricted . The case was a culmination of a series of cases relating to limitations to the power to amend the Indian constitution . </P> <P> In February 1970 Swami Kesavananda Bharati, senior plaintiff and head of "Edneer Mutt" - a Hindu Mutt situated in Edneer, a village in Kasaragod district of Kerala, challenged the Kerala government's attempts, under two state land reform acts, to impose restrictions on the management of its property . Although the state invoked its authority under Article 21, a noted Indian jurist, Nanabhoy Palkhivala, convinced Swami into filing his petition under Article 26, concerning the right to manage religiously owned property without government interference . Even though the hearings consumed five months, the outcome would profoundly affect India's democratic processes . The case had been heard for 68 days, the arguments commencing on October 31, 1972, and ending on March 23, 1973 . </P> <P> The Supreme Court reviewed the decision in Golaknath v. State of Punjab, and considered the validity of the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th amendments . The case was heard by the largest ever Constitution Bench of 13 Judges . The bench gave eleven separate judgements, which agreed on some points and differed on others . Nanabhoy Palkhivala, assisted by Fali Nariman, presented the case against the government in both cases . </P> <P> Upholding the validity of clause (4) of article 13 and a corresponding provision in article 368 (3), inserted by the 24th Amendment, the Court settled in favour of the view that Parliament has the power to amend the fundamental rights also . However, the Court affirmed another proposition also asserted in the Golaknath case, by ruling that the expression "amendment" of this Constitution in article 368 means any addition or change in any of the provisions of the Constitution within the broad contours of the Preamble and the Constitution to carry out the objectives in the Preamble and the Directive Principles . Applied to fundamental rights, it would be that while fundamental rights cannot be abrogated, reasonable abridgement of fundamental rights could be effected in the public interest . The true position is that every provision of the Constitution can be amended provided the basic foundation and structure of the Constitution remains the same . </P>

In india which case heard by the largest ever constitutional bench of 13 supreme court judges
find me the text answering this question