Triple
T5738459
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | basic structure doctrine |
E126555
|
entity |
| Predicate | usedInCase |
P13176
|
FINISHED |
| Object |
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India is a landmark 1997 Supreme Court of India judgment that reaffirmed judicial review as part of the Constitution’s basic structure and held that decisions of tribunals are subject to scrutiny by High Courts under Articles 226 and 227.
|
E551156
|
NE FINISHED |
How this triple was built (4 steps)
Every LLM step that produced this triple, in pipeline order — named-entity classification, the disambiguation choices (the exact options shown, with the pick highlighted), and the generated description. The batch + timestamp of each is in the Provenance table below.
NER
Named-entity recognition
gpt-5-mini
Instruction
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).
Input
Phrase: L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India | Statement: [basic structure doctrine, usedInCase, L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India]
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India Context triple: [basic structure doctrine, usedInCase, L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India]
-
A.
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.
-
B.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and affirming constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ rights.
-
C.
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.
-
D.
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.
-
E.
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu is a landmark 2007 Supreme Court of India judgment that reaffirmed and strengthened the basic structure doctrine by holding that even laws placed in the Ninth Schedule are subject to judicial review if they violate the Constitution’s fundamental framework.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NEDg
Description generation
gpt-5.1
Instruction
Generate a one-sentence description of the target entity. You are given a context triple in the form (subject, predicate, object), where the object is the target entity. # Instructions Use the triple to infer relevant information about the entity. Describe the entity based on what is most defining, well-known. Avoid repeating the information from the triple, unless really essential. # Response Format Return only the sentence: "Description: [one-sentence description of the target entity]"
Input
Entity: L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India Triple: [basic structure doctrine, usedInCase, L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India]
Generated description
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India is a landmark 1997 Supreme Court of India judgment that reaffirmed judicial review as part of the Constitution’s basic structure and held that decisions of tribunals are subject to scrutiny by High Courts under Articles 226 and 227.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India Target entity description: L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India is a landmark 1997 Supreme Court of India judgment that reaffirmed judicial review as part of the Constitution’s basic structure and held that decisions of tribunals are subject to scrutiny by High Courts under Articles 226 and 227.
-
A.
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.
-
B.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and affirming constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ rights.
-
C.
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.
-
D.
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.
-
E.
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu is a landmark 2007 Supreme Court of India judgment that reaffirmed and strengthened the basic structure doctrine by holding that even laws placed in the Ninth Schedule are subject to judicial review if they violate the Constitution’s fundamental framework.
- F. None of above. chosen
Provenance (5 batches)
The batch behind each pipeline step, in order, with when it ran. Timestamps are batch-level — stages were processed in waves, so the object chain (NER → NED1 → NEDg → NED2) reads in order, but predicate / elicitation batches can sit in a different wave.
| Step | Stage | Batch ID | Status | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| creating | Elicitation | batch_69c0083082288190b7478cead6b5430a |
completed | March 22, 2026, 3:18 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69c0255c8c308190821f968ec41c5078 |
completed | March 22, 2026, 5:22 p.m. |
| NED1 | Entity disambiguation (via context triple) | batch_69c0a16436588190943a0b81ea9429d9 |
completed | March 23, 2026, 2:11 a.m. |
| NEDg | Description generation | batch_69c0a210d9788190b3a40e8ec2f2c6b6 |
completed | March 23, 2026, 2:14 a.m. |
| NED2 | Entity disambiguation (via description) | batch_69c0a2afcef88190a77c8089a1b85393 |
completed | March 23, 2026, 2:17 a.m. |
Created at: March 22, 2026, 3:47 p.m.