Triple
T22147065
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab |
E547312
|
entity |
| Predicate | overruledPrecedent |
P2251
|
FINISHED |
| Object | Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan |
—
|
NE NERFINISHED |
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: Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan | Statement: [I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, overruledPrecedent, Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan]
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan Context triple: [I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, overruledPrecedent, Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan]
-
A.
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
chosen
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan is a 1965 Indian Supreme Court case that examined the scope of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, particularly fundamental rights, under Article 368.
-
B.
Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India
Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India is a landmark 1951 Supreme Court of India case that upheld Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights under the Constitution.
-
C.
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.
-
D.
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.
-
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.
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
Provenance (2 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_69e11e3a95d88190a3bd80d9471976c3 |
completed | April 16, 2026, 5:36 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69f129f156988190bc9a24a37418e849 |
completed | April 28, 2026, 9:43 p.m. |
Created at: April 16, 2026, 8:33 p.m.