Triple

T14606105
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject Article 356 of the Constitution of India E342832 entity
Predicate interpretedIn P2252 FINISHED
Object S. R. Bommai v. Union of India E545540 NE FINISHED

How this triple was built (2 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: S. R. Bommai v. Union of India | Statement: [Article 356 of the Constitution of India, interpretedIn, S. R. Bommai v. Union of India]
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07 
Target entity: S. R. Bommai v. Union of India
Context triple: [Article 356 of the Constitution of India, interpretedIn, S. R. Bommai v. Union of India]
  • A. S. R. Bommai v. Union of India chosen
    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.
  • B. 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.
  • C. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
    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.
  • D. 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.
  • E. 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.
  • F. None of above.
  • G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

Provenance (3 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_69d822dec68081908c2553145c4051dc completed April 9, 2026, 10:06 p.m.
NER Named-entity recognition batch_69deb44bf67c8190b4c48a7715f9443e completed April 14, 2026, 9:40 p.m.
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) batch_69fd94d09e988190a2a2a1332397b412 completed May 8, 2026, 7:46 a.m.
Created at: April 10, 2026, 1:25 a.m.