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: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala | Statement: [S. M. Sikri, presidedOverCase, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala]

Target entity: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Context triple: [S. M. Sikri, presidedOverCase, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala]

• A. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala chosen
  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.
• 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. 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.
• D. 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.
• 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.
• G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

Target predicate: presidedOverCase
Context triple: [S. M. Sikri, presidedOverCase, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala]

• A. legalCasePresided chosen
  Indicates that a particular legal case was overseen and directed by a specific judge or judicial authority.
• B. trialPresidedOver
  Indicates that a particular judge or authority figure oversaw and directed the proceedings of a specific trial.
• C. presidedAt
  Indicates that one entity held a position of authority or leadership over the proceedings or activities that took place at a specific event or location.
• D. courtHeld
  Indicates that a court has formally decided, ruled, or determined a particular legal issue or question.
• E. overseenByCourt
  Indicates that an action, process, or entity is subject to supervision, authority, or control by a court.
• F. None of above.