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: Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (to the extent it denied a fundamental right to privacy) | Statement: [Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, overruledPrecedent, Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (to the extent it denied a fundamental right to privacy)]

Target entity: Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (to the extent it denied a fundamental right to privacy)
Context triple: [Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, overruledPrecedent, Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (to the extent it denied a fundamental right to privacy)]

• A. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India
  Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India is a landmark 2017 Supreme Court of India judgment that unanimously affirmed the fundamental right to privacy under the Indian Constitution.
• B. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
  Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and affirming constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ rights.
• C. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
  L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India is a landmark 1997 Supreme Court of India judgment that reaffirmed judicial review as part of the Constitution’s basic structure and held that decisions of tribunals are subject to scrutiny by High Courts under Articles 226 and 227.
• D. 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.
• 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.

Generate a one-sentence description of the target entity. 
You are given a context triple in the form (subject, predicate, object), where the object is the target entity. 
# Instructions
Use the triple to infer relevant information about the entity. Describe the entity based on what is most defining, well-known. 
Avoid repeating the information from the triple, unless really essential.
# Response Format
Return only the sentence: "Description: [one-sentence description of the target entity]"

Entity: Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (to the extent it denied a fundamental right to privacy)
Triple: [Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, overruledPrecedent, Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (to the extent it denied a fundamental right to privacy)]

Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh is a landmark 1963 Indian Supreme Court decision whose narrow view rejecting privacy as a fundamental right was later expressly overruled by the Court in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India.

Target entity: Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (to the extent it denied a fundamental right to privacy)
Target entity description: Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh is a landmark 1963 Indian Supreme Court decision whose narrow view rejecting privacy as a fundamental right was later expressly overruled by the Court in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India.

• A. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India
  Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India is a landmark 2017 Supreme Court of India judgment that unanimously affirmed the fundamental right to privacy under the Indian Constitution.
• B. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
  Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and affirming constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ rights.
• C. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
  L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India is a landmark 1997 Supreme Court of India judgment that reaffirmed judicial review as part of the Constitution’s basic structure and held that decisions of tribunals are subject to scrutiny by High Courts under Articles 226 and 227.
• D. 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.
• 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