majority of 6–5, on 27 February 1967, that "Parliament has no power to amend Part III of the Constitution so as to take away or abridge the fundamental rights" (I.C. Golak Nath vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1967 S.C. 1643, (1967) 2 SCJ 486) by stating that no specific provision of the Constitution was immune to amendment, but no amendment could violate the basic structure or inner unity of the Constitution. The court propounded what has come to be known as the "basic structure" doctrine, which rules that any part of the Constitution may be amended by following the procedure prescribed in Article 368, but no part may be so amended as to "alter the basic structure" of the Constitution. In 1975, shortly after the imposition of the Indian Emergency, bench of 13 judges was hastily assembled, and presided over by Chief Justice A.N. Ray to determine the degree to which amendments installed by the government of Indira Gandhi were restricted by the Basic Structure theory. By the order of the Chief Justice of 9 November, on 10 November a Bench of 13 Judges commenced hearing of the review of Kesavananda Bharati case. The Bench consisted of Chief Justice A.N. Ray, Justices H.R. Khanna, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.K. Goswami, R.S. Sarkaria, A.C. Gupta, N.L. Untwalia, M. Fazal Ali and P.M. Singhal. On 10 and 11 November, the team of civil libertarian barristers – led by Palkhivala – continuously argued against the Union government's application for reconsideration of the Kesavananda decision. Some of the judges accepted his argument on the very first day, the others on the next; by the end of the second day, the Chief Justice was reduced to a minority of one. On the morning of 12 November, Chief Justice Ray tersely pronounced that the bench was dissolved, and the judges rose. Post his resignation, Justice H.R. Khanna (a member of the Bench in Kesavananda Review) praised Nani's advocacy in Kesavananda Review case and remarked 'It was not Nani who spoke. It was divinity speaking through him'. Justice Khanna and other Judges were of the view that ' the heights of eloquence and advocacy reached by Palkhivala on these two days were really unparalleled and that Palkhivala's feat would perhaps never be equalled in the Supreme Court'. Seven years later, in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, [(1980)