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: M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra | Statement: [Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, overruledPrecedent, M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra]

Target entity: M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra
Context triple: [Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, overruledPrecedent, M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra]

• A. 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.
• 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. 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. 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.
• E. A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
  A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras is a landmark 1950 decision of the Supreme Court of India that narrowly interpreted fundamental rights and upheld preventive detention laws under the Constitution.
• F. None of above. chosen
• G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

Target entity: M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra
Target entity description: M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra is a 1954 Supreme Court of India judgment that had denied the existence of a fundamental right to privacy under the Indian Constitution, a position later overruled by the landmark Puttaswamy decision.

• A. 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.
• 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. 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. 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.
• E. A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
  A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras is a landmark 1950 decision of the Supreme Court of India that narrowly interpreted fundamental rights and upheld preventive detention laws under the Constitution.
• F. None of above. chosen