Triple

Given a phrase, classify it is english named entity (e.g., persons, organizations, works of art) in Latin script, or not (e.g., literals, dates, URLs, verbose phrases). For disambiguation, the statement where the phrase occurs as object is also given. Please return a JSON object with `phrase` (string, the phrase being analyzed) and `is_ne` (boolean, indicating whether the phrase is a Named Entity).

Phrase: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala | Statement: [basic structure doctrine, sourceCase, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala]

Target entity: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Context triple: [basic structure doctrine, sourceCase, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala]

• A. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala chosen
  Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a landmark 1973 Supreme Court of India judgment that established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
• B. I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab
  I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab is a landmark 1967 Indian Supreme Court case that held Parliament could not amend fundamental rights under the Constitution, sharply limiting its amending power until this view was later modified.
• C. S. R. Bommai v. Union of India
  S. R. Bommai v. Union of India is a landmark 1994 Supreme Court of India judgment that curtailed the arbitrary use of President’s Rule and strengthened federalism by applying the basic structure doctrine to center-state relations.
• D. Waman Rao v. Union of India
  Waman Rao v. Union of India is a landmark 1981 Supreme Court of India judgment that reaffirmed and clarified the basic structure doctrine by upholding its applicability to constitutional amendments made after the Kesavananda Bharati decision.
• E. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India
  Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India is a landmark 1980 judgment of the Supreme Court of India that reaffirmed and strengthened the basic structure doctrine by limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
• F. None of above.
• G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

Target predicate: sourceCase
Context triple: [basic structure doctrine, sourceCase, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala]

• A. source
  Indicates that something originates from, is derived from, or is provided by a particular entity or location.
• B. sourceCategory
  Indicates the classification or type from which something originates or is derived.
• C. sourceState
  Indicates the original or starting state from which a transition, change, or process begins.
• D. sharesCaseWith chosen
  Indicates that two entities are involved in, or associated with, the same legal case or proceeding.
• E. hasCase
  Indicates that one entity is involved in, associated with, or characterized by a particular case, instance, or occurrence represented by another entity.
• F. None of above.