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: In re Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, 1960 | Statement: [Article 143 of the Constitution of India, usedInCase, In re Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, 1960]

Target entity: In re Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, 1960
Context triple: [Article 143 of the Constitution of India, usedInCase, In re Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, 1960]

• A. M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra
  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.
• 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. 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.
• 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. 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.
• F. None of above. chosen
• G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

Target entity: In re Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, 1960
Target entity description: In re Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, 1960 is a landmark Supreme Court of India advisory opinion that clarified the constitutional procedure for ceding Indian territory to a foreign state.

• A. M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra
  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.
• 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. 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.
• 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. 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.
• F. None of above. chosen