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: [Article 368 of the Constitution of India, wasSignificantlyInterpretedIn, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala]

Target entity: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Context triple: [Article 368 of the Constitution of India, wasSignificantlyInterpretedIn, 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: wasSignificantlyInterpretedIn
Context triple: [Article 368 of the Constitution of India, wasSignificantlyInterpretedIn, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala]

• A. hasNotableInterpretationIn chosen
  Indicates that something (such as a work, concept, or symbol) has a significant or widely recognized interpretation within a specified context, field, or tradition.
• B. notableInterpretation
  Indicates that an entity is a significant or widely recognized interpretation, rendition, or version of another work, concept, or subject.
• C. frequentlyInterpretedBy
  Indicates that an entity is often or regularly interpreted, explained, or given meaning by a particular agent or group.
• D. containsInterpretationOf
  Indicates that one entity includes or embodies an interpretation or understanding of another entity.
• E. areInterpretedInPracticeBy
  Indicates that something (such as a rule, concept, or specification) is given concrete meaning or applied in real-world situations by a particular agent or group.
• F. None of above.