Mughal emperor Babur’s commander Mir Baqi builds Babri Masjid
Faizabad district court rejects Mahant Raghubir Das’s plea seeking permission to build a canopy outside the Babri Masjid structure.
Next batch of litigations starts after a mob lays siege to the mosque and places idols of Ram Lalla under the dome.
We are deeply grateful to our readers & viewers for their time, trust and subscriptions.
Quality journalism is expensive and needs readers to pay for it. Your support will define our work and ThePrint’s future.
Ramchandra Das and Gopal Simla Visharad file suits in Faizabad district court for rights to worship the Ram Lalla idols. Das withdraws his plea later in 1990.
Nirmohi Akhara files suit seeking possession of the disputed site.
18 December 1961
Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board files suit for possession of the Babri Masjid site.
1 February 1986
Local court orders the government to open the site to Hindu worshippers. Rajiv Gandhi was the prime minister when the decision was taken.
BJP officially joins the movement after Bhagwan Sri Ramlalla Virajman at Sri Ram Janma Boomi Ayodhya, Asthan Sri Ram Janma Bhoomi Ayodhya file a title suit represented by Deoki Nandan Agarwala, a former judge of the Allahabad High Court.
14 August 1989
Allahabad High Court issues order to maintain status quo at the disputed structure.
25 September 1990
BJP leader L.K. Advani launches Rath Yatra from Somnath in Gujarat.
Kalyan Singh government acquires 2.77 acre of land around the disputed site.
6 December 1992
Kar sevaks demolish Babri Masjid.
P.V. Narasimha Rao government takes over 67 acres of land around the site and asks Supreme Court to decide whether a Hindu place of worship predated the construction of the mosque.
3 April 1993
Centre passes ‘Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act’ for acquisition of land in the disputed area. The act was challenged by several writ petitions, including one filed by Ismail Faruqui in Allahabad High Court.
24 October 1994
Supreme Court says in the historic Ismail Faruqui case that the mosque was not integral to Islam.
Allahabad High Court begins hearing on determining who owned the disputed site.
13 March 2003
In the Aslam alias Bhure case, a Supreme Court ruling bans religious activity of any nature at the acquired land.
30 September 2010
In a 2:1 majority, Allahabad High Court rules three-way division of disputed area between Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
9 May 2011
Supreme Court stays HC verdict on Ayodhya land dispute after appeals are filed against it.
21 March 2017
CJI J.S. Khehar suggests out-of-court settlement among rival parties.
Supreme Court constitutes a three-judge bench to hear pleas challenging the 1994 verdict of the Allahabad High Court.
UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells SC mosque could be built in a Muslim-dominated area at a reasonable distance from the disputed site.
SC directs Chief Justice of the Allahabad HC to nominate two additional district judges within ten days as observers to deal with the upkeep of the disputed site.
Temple can be built in Ayodhya and mosque in Lucknow: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells Supreme Court.
Thirty-two civil rights activists file plea challenging the 2010 verdict of the Allahabad High Court.
8 February 2018
Supreme Court starts hearing the civil appeals.
Supreme Court rejects all interim pleas seeking to intervene as parties in the case.
Rajeev Dhavan files plea in Supreme Court to refer the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgment to a larger bench.
Supreme Court reserves verdict.
Supreme Court declines to refer the case to a five-judge Constitution bench.
Supreme Court fixes the case for the first week of January before an appropriate bench to decide the schedule of hearing.
SC decides to take up petitions for hearing on January 4.
4 January 2019
SC says an appropriate bench constituted by it will pass an order on January 10 for fixing the date of hearing in the title case.
SC sets up a five-judge Constitution Bench to hear the case headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices S.A. Bobde, N.V. Ramana, U.U. Lalit and D.Y. Chandrachud.
Justice U.U. Lalit recuses himself prompting SC to reschedule the hearing for January 29 before a new bench.
SC reconstitutes 5-member Constitution Bench to hear the case. The new bench comprises Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S.A. Bobde, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S.A. Nazeer.
Centre moves SC seeking permission to return the 67-acre acquired land around the disputed site to original owners.
SC decides to hear the case on 26 February.
Supreme Court favours mediation and fixes 5 March for order on whether to refer matter to court-appointed mediator.
Supreme Court reserves order on whether the land dispute can be settled through mediation.
Nirmohi Akhara opposes Centre’s plea to return acquired land around Ayodhya site to owners.
The three-member mediation committee submits interim report to the SC.
The Supreme Court allows mediation process to continue, seeks outcome report by 1 August.
A sealed report of mediation submitted in Supreme Court.
Supreme Court begins day-to-day hearing on the land dispute.
Supreme Court concludes hearing and reserves order.
Supreme Court announces verdict — Government trust to get disputed Ayodhya site for Ram Mandir, Muslims to get another plot.
News media is in a crisis & only you can fix it
You are reading this because you value good, intelligent and objective journalism. We thank you for your time and your trust.
You also know that the news media is facing an unprecedented crisis. It is likely that you are also hearing of the brutal layoffs and pay-cuts hitting the industry. There are many reasons why the media’s economics is broken. But a big one is that good people are not yet paying enough for good journalism.
We have a newsroom filled with talented young reporters. We also have the country’s most robust editing and fact-checking team, finest news photographers and video professionals. We are building India’s most ambitious and energetic news platform. And we aren’t even three yet.
At ThePrint, we invest in quality journalists. We pay them fairly and on time even in this difficult period. As you may have noticed, we do not flinch from spending whatever it takes to make sure our reporters reach where the story is. Our stellar coronavirus coverage is a good example. You can check some of it here.
This comes with a sizable cost. For us to continue bringing quality journalism, we need readers like you to pay for it. Because the advertising market is broken too.
If you think we deserve your support, do join us in this endeavour to strengthen fair, free, courageous, and questioning journalism, please click on the link below. Your support will define our journalism, and ThePrint’s future. It will take just a few seconds of your time.