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 Presidential Reference on Ayodhya, 1993 | Statement: [Article 143 of the Constitution of India, usedInCase, In re Presidential Reference on Ayodhya, 1993]

Target entity: In re Presidential Reference on Ayodhya, 1993
Context triple: [Article 143 of the Constitution of India, usedInCase, In re Presidential Reference on Ayodhya, 1993]

• A. 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.
• B. 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.
• C. 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.
• D. 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.
• E. 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.
• F. None of above. chosen
• G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

Target entity: In re Presidential Reference on Ayodhya, 1993
Target entity description: In re Presidential Reference on Ayodhya, 1993 is a landmark advisory opinion of the Supreme Court of India concerning the constitutional and historical issues surrounding the disputed site in Ayodhya.

• A. 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.
• B. 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.
• C. 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.
• D. 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.
• E. 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.
• F. None of above. chosen