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: Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu | Statement: [Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, landmarkCase, Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu]

Target entity: Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu
Context triple: [Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, landmarkCase, Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu]

• A. Holt v. Hobbs
  Holt v. Hobbs is a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that a prison policy preventing a Muslim inmate from growing a short beard violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
• B. Hurd v. Hodge
  Hurd v. Hodge is a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially restrictive covenants in property deeds could not be judicially enforced in the District of Columbia because such enforcement would violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
• C. Chiafalo v. Washington
  Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
• D. Corrigan v. Buckley
  Corrigan v. Buckley is a 1926 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the enforceability of racially restrictive covenants in property deeds, paving the way for widespread legalized housing segregation until later overturned in effect by subsequent civil rights rulings.
• E. Briggs v. Elliott
  Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
• F. None of above. chosen
• G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

Target entity: Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu
Target entity description: Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu is a 1992 Supreme Court of India judgment that upheld the constitutional validity of the anti-defection law while subjecting the Speaker’s decisions under it to judicial review.

• A. Holt v. Hobbs
  Holt v. Hobbs is a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that a prison policy preventing a Muslim inmate from growing a short beard violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
• B. Hurd v. Hodge
  Hurd v. Hodge is a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially restrictive covenants in property deeds could not be judicially enforced in the District of Columbia because such enforcement would violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
• C. Chiafalo v. Washington
  Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
• D. Corrigan v. Buckley
  Corrigan v. Buckley is a 1926 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the enforceability of racially restrictive covenants in property deeds, paving the way for widespread legalized housing segregation until later overturned in effect by subsequent civil rights rulings.
• E. Briggs v. Elliott
  Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
• F. None of above. chosen