Use the following sources to answer the question :
Context: ['It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that though the Honble Supreme Court in the case of NAME_1 NAME_2 Vs. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 has overruled the judgment in case of Golak NAME_3 (Supra) but not on the issue of prospective overruling. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the judgment in the case of NAME_4. NAME_5 NAME_6 & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (2014) 6 SCC 537 and in particular paragraphs 10, 11, 18 and 19 on the issue of prospective overruling.', 'Golak NAME_3\'s case has, however, been overruled in NAME_1 NAME_7 v. State of Kerala, (AIR 1973 SC 1461) (supra) The controversy is now set at rest with the decision rendered in I.NAME_8. NAME_9 where alteration of the basic structure has been accepted as the test to determine the constitutional validity of an amendment to the Constitution. It was said: "The decision in NAME_1 NAME_2 case was rendered on 24-4-1973 by a thirteen-Judge NAME_10 and by majority of seven to six Golak NAME_3 case ([1967] 2 SCR 762 (Eleven Judges NAME_10)) was overruled. The majority opinion held that Article 368 did not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution." (Paragraph 21) And again, "In NAME_1 NAME_2 case the majority held that the power of amendment of the Constitution under Article 368 did not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure of the Constitution.” (Paragraph 119) The attack, therefore, is not on the basic structure of the Constitution but on the amending power of Parliament.', 'These amendments were challenged in NAME_1 Bharatis case.  The decision in NAME_1 Bharatis case was rendered on 24th April, 1973 by a 13 Judges NAME_10 and by majority of seven to six Golak Naths case was overruled.  The majority opinion held that Article 368 did not enable the Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.  The Constitution (24th Amendment) Act, 1971 was held to be valid.  Further, the first part of Article 31C was also held to be valid.  However, the second part of Article 31C that "no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy" was declared unconstitutional. The Constitution 29th Amendment was held valid. The validity of the 26th Amendment was left to be determined by a Constitution NAME_10 of five Judges.', "The constitutionality of the a Add stress words which are capitalized. Limit those stress words for less than 14 times.
user