20 April 1526
Babur defeated Ibrahim Lodhi at the First Battle of Panipat, establishing the Mughal dynasty in India. This victory gave Babur sovereignty over the Indo-Gangetic plain including Ayodhya, and set the historical context for the construction of the Babri Masjid two years later at the site Hindus hold as the birthplace of Lord Rama.
28 March 1528
Babur reached the confluence of the rivers Ghaghara and Saryu at Ayodhya. According to the Babur-Nama (his personal diary), this is the visit during which his commander Mir Baqi is believed to have been commissioned to build the mosque that came to be known as the Babri Masjid. The Supreme Court noted that Babur-Nama records for the critical period from 2 April 1528 to 17 September 1528 are missing, making it impossible to pinpoint the exact date of construction from his own diary.
13 February 1856
The East India Company formally annexed the Kingdom of Oudh (Awadh). This annexation brought the disputed site at Ayodhya under British colonial sovereignty for the first time. The Supreme Court of India noted that this change of sovereign had a direct bearing on all property rights at the site, including the legal status of the Babri Masjid and the Ramchabutra — neither Hindu devotees nor Muslim worshippers were excluded from the site by the new sovereign.
15 March 1858
By the Proclamation of Lord Canning, Governor-General of India, all property in Oudh — with the exception of a select few estates — was confiscated by the British Crown. The disputed site at Ayodhya was designated as Nazul land, meaning land that had escheated to and vested in the government. This designation as Nazul land was maintained continuously in all subsequent revenue settlements of 1861, 1893-94, and 1936-37, and became a central fact in the title dispute adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
1 November 1858
With effect from this date, the entire territory under the control of the East India Company was formally placed under the direct authority of the British Crown, following the Government of India Act 1858 enacted after the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857. In the first revenue settlement of 1861 carried out under the new British Crown administration, the land in dispute at Ayodhya was confirmed as Nazul land — a status that was maintained in every subsequent settlement and was a critical fact before the Supreme Court in adjudicating title.
28 November 1858
Sheetal Dubey, the Thanedar (police officer) of Oudh, submitted a report describing a significant incident of Hindu-Sikh religious activity inside the Babri Masjid. A Nihang Sikh, Nihang Singh Faqir Khalsa from Punjab, organised a Hawan and Puja inside the mosque, erected a religious symbol, wrote 'Ram Ram' on the mosque walls with coal, and placed a picture of an idol inside the mosque. Twenty-five Sikhs stood guard during the ceremony. This is one of the earliest documented instances of non-Muslim religious activity inside the mosque, cited by the Supreme Court as evidence of the long-running Hindu and Sikh association with the site.
30 November 1858
Syed Mohammad Khatib, the Moazzin (caller to prayer) of the Babri Masjid, lodged a formal complaint — Case No. 884 — before the Station House Officer against the Nihang Sikh. He stated that the Nihang Singh was creating a riot in the masjid, had forcibly built a Chabutra inside, placed an idol picture, lit a fire and conducted puja, and written 'Ram Ram' on the walls. The Moazzin requested the Nihang Sikh's removal, noting that Bairagis had previously also constructed a Ramchabutra overnight. This complaint is a contemporaneous Muslim record of Hindu encroachment on the mosque's interior in 1858.
1 December 1858
A report was submitted by the Thanedar stating that he had served a summons on Nihang Singh Faqir Khalsa and admonished him. Despite the admonition, the Nihang Sikh continued to insist that 'every place belonged to Nirankar' (the formless God), refusing to acknowledge the mosque as exclusively Muslim territory. A further report dated 6 December 1858 confirmed the formal service of the summons on the Nihang Sikh, and the order of 10 December 1858 recorded that the Jhanda (flag) was uprooted and the Faqir was finally ousted from the mosque.
5 December 1858
A court order was issued in Case No. 884 (the Nihang Sikh complaint case), directing the Police Sub-Inspector of Oudh that in the event the Faqir was not removed from the disputed mosque premises voluntarily, he must be arrested and produced before the court. This order represented the colonial administration's formal judicial response to the Nihang Sikh's occupation of the mosque — an episode that prefigured the longer Hindu-Muslim contest over the site that would unfold over the following century and a half.
10 December 1858
An order was passed recording that the Jhanda (religious flag) erected by the Nihang Sikh inside the Babri Masjid had been uprooted and that the Faqir residing therein had been formally ousted from the mosque premises. This brought the 1858 Nihang Sikh episode to a formal close, with the colonial administration restoring Muslim exclusive possession of the mosque's interior. The episode nonetheless remained part of the historical record of non-Muslim religious activity at the site, cited as evidence in the Supreme Court proceedings over 160 years later.
9 April 1860
An application was made by Mohammadi Shah to the Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad, regarding rights and entitlements at the disputed Babri Masjid site. This application is part of the documented record of ongoing Muslim administrative engagement with the colonial authorities to assert and protect their rights at the site during the early British period following the annexation of Oudh.
5 November 1860
An application was filed by Mir Rajjab Ali (Case No. 223) against Askali Singh before the Deputy Commissioner of Faizabad, complaining about a new Chabootra (platform) being constructed in the graveyard area within the Babri Masjid precincts. This application reflects the contested nature of the entire compound — Muslim parties were actively using legal mechanisms to resist Hindu construction activities on the site even outside the mosque structure itself.
12 March 1861
An application was filed by Mohd Asghar and Rajjab Ali in proceedings connected with the first revenue settlement of the newly British-administered Oudh territory. These proceedings resulted in the disputed site being recorded as Nazul (government) land in the settlement records of 1861 — the first formal revenue record of the site under British sovereignty, which was maintained in all subsequent settlements and cited by the Supreme Court as evidence on title.
26 August 1868
A suit was filed by Niyamat Ali and Mohd Shah against Gangadhar Shastri before the civil courts at Faizabad. This proceeding was part of the chain of 19th-century civil litigation in which Muslim parties attempted to assert and protect their exclusive rights over the Babri Masjid compound against Hindu encroachments, and were cited by the Supreme Court as part of the historical record of possession and usage of the disputed site.
22 February 1870
A suit was filed by Mohd Asghar against the Government before the civil courts at Faizabad. This proceeding is part of the documented post-annexation litigation by Muslim parties before British colonial courts asserting their rights over the Babri Masjid property and its surrounding areas, forming part of the historical evidentiary record considered by the Supreme Court in adjudicating the title dispute.
13 April 1877
Permission was granted to Mahant Khem Das for the construction or repair of certain structures in the outer courtyard of the disputed premises. This colonial-era permission, granted to a Hindu religious figure at the site, was cited as evidence of Hindu presence in and partial control over the outer courtyard — a fact that became central to the Supreme Court's eventual finding that the outer courtyard was in Hindu possession.
14 May 1877
A report was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad, regarding the state of the disputed site and the rival claims being made by Hindu and Muslim parties. This report forms part of the voluminous colonial administrative record that documented the ongoing contest over the Babri Masjid and its environs throughout the 19th century, and was placed in evidence before the High Court and the Supreme Court.
13 December 1877
An appeal regarding the opening of a door at the disputed premises was dismissed by the judicial authority. The order stated: 'As the door in question has been opened by the Deputy Commissioner in the interests of public safety, I decline to interfere. Appeal dismissed.' This ruling reflected the colonial administration's approach of prioritising public order over the competing religious claims of the parties.
8 November 1882
An application was submitted by Mahant Raghubar Das seeking rent for the use of the Ramchabutra in the outer courtyard of the disputed premises. This application — filed three years before the 1885 suit — is one of the earliest documented Hindu assertions of a proprietary interest in the outer courtyard, evidencing Hindu possession of and economic interest in the Ramchabutra well before the formal litigation began.
27 June 1884
A complaint was submitted by Mahant Raghubar Das seeking a spot inspection of the disputed premises — evidence of the Mahant's active engagement with colonial authorities to protect Hindu interests at the site in the years immediately preceding the 1885 formal suit. Together with the 1882 rent application, this establishes that Hindu claims over the outer courtyard were being actively asserted and documented well before the first suit was filed.
19 January 1885
The formal suit by Mahant Raghubar Das was registered in the court records — Exhibit A-22 in Suit 1. This is the documentary origin of the 1885 litigation that became the first formal legal proceeding in the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute. The registration of this suit marks the beginning of the formal judicial chapter of a contest that would ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court's unanimous verdict 134 years later.
29 January 1885
Mahant Raghubar Das, the Mahant of Ram Janmasthan, formally instituted Suit No. 1 of 1885 before the Sub-Judge, Faizabad, seeking permission to construct a temple on the Ramchabutra in the outer courtyard of the disputed premises. A sketch map was filed with the plaint. This was the first formal legal attempt by Hindus to assert the right to build a religious structure at the Ram Janmabhoomi site — the starting point of 134 years of litigation.
24 December 1885
The trial Sub-Judge dismissed Suit No. 1 of 1885 filed by Mahant Raghubar Das. The court noted that permitting construction of a temple at the disputed site would be likely to cause communal riots. However, the trial judge also observed that there could be no question or doubt regarding the possession and ownership of the Hindus over the Ramchabutra — a finding that the appellate District Judge subsequently struck off as unnecessary.
18 March 1886
The District Judge dismissed the first appeal against the trial court's judgment of 24 December 1885. He described it as 'most unfortunate' that the Masjid had been built on land held sacred by the Hindus, but held that since the construction had stood for 358 years it was too late to reverse matters. He struck off the trial court's observations regarding Hindu ownership of the Ramchabutra — removing that limited recognition from the official record.
26 March 1886
The District Judge issued his full reasoned judgment in the first appeal from the 1885 suit. The judgment held that while it was most unfortunate that the Masjid had been built on land especially sacred to the Hindus, since 358 years had passed since its construction, it was too late in the day to disturb or reverse the position. The reasoning — that the passage of time overrides the merits of the underlying grievance — was characteristic of colonial-era adjudications on the Ayodhya dispute.
1 November 1886
The Judicial Commissioner of Oudh dismissed the second appeal filed by Mahant Raghubar Das, conclusively ending the 1885 litigation. The Judicial Commissioner held: (i) there was nothing on record to show that the plaintiff was the proprietor of the land; and (ii) allowing the parties to disturb the status quo after a mosque had been in existence for nearly 350 years was inappropriate. This brought the first round of formal litigation to a complete and final close with no relief granted to the Hindu petitioner.
17 May 1894
The editorial introduction to Jerrett's 'The Ruins of Sultanpur' — a significant colonial-era historical text — was written on this date, making references to the religious significance of Ayodhya and the Ram Janmabhoomi site. This document was placed in evidence before the Supreme Court as part of the historical record of the site's religious and archaeological significance.
11 June 1900
An agreement dated 11 June 1900 was executed permitting certain activities at the Babri Masjid site — Exhibit 8 in Suit 3. This document forms part of the continuing record of the management and administration of the disputed premises in the early 20th century, documenting that both Hindu and Muslim parties remained actively engaged with the site during this period.
27 March 1934
Communal riots broke out on the occasion of Bakri-Eid in which a Hindu mob damaged and destroyed a portion of the Babri Masjid. During these riots, one of the two founding inscription tablets of the mosque — which recorded its date of construction and builder — was broken and subsequently replaced with a new tablet. The damage was documented in official government records and the mosque was later repaired at government expense. The fact that one inscription tablet was a replacement became significant in assessing the authenticity of the inscriptions as evidence before the Supreme Court.
12 May 1934
Muslims were officially given permission to commence the cleaning of the Babri Masjid and resume religious services following the damage caused in the riots of 27 March 1934. Government records documenting the permission for cleaning and resumption of services were placed in evidence before the Supreme Court as part of the Muslim parties' case establishing continuous Muslim administration of and access to the mosque.
6 October 1934
The District Magistrate issued an order directing the payment of government compensation for the damage caused to the Babri Masjid in the communal riots of 27 March 1934. The payment of government compensation for damage to a mosque recognised by the government's own order as a place of Muslim worship was cited by Muslim parties as evidence of the official recognition of the mosque's Muslim character and the state's obligation to protect it.
25 July 1936
An agreement was executed in favour of Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar as Pesh Imam (officiating prayer leader) of the Babri Masjid, documenting the formal appointment of a Muslim religious official to lead prayers at the mosque. This document was placed in evidence as part of the Muslim parties' case establishing active Waqf administration of the mosque, with duly appointed religious functionaries conducting regular prayers, in the period leading up to the events of December 1949.
4 June 1942
A compromise order was passed and a decree drawn up in proceedings between parties within the Nirmohi Akhara — a suit between different claimants within the Hindu side regarding management rights at the disputed site. The Nirmohi Akhara's internal compromise on 4 June 1942 was cited before the Supreme Court as part of the evidence regarding the Akhara's claims to manage the disputed premises.
26 February 1944
The Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under the UP Muslim Waqf Act 1936 declaring the Babri Masjid to be a Sunni Waqf property. This notification was immediately challenged by the Shia Central Waqf Board, which claimed that the mosque had been built by Mir Baqi — a Shia — and was therefore a Shia Waqf. The notification and the challenge to it gave rise to the formal Shia-Sunni dispute over ownership of the Babri Masjid itself, litigated in Regular Suit No. 29 of 1945.
11 April 1945
The Shia Central Waqf Board issued a formal notice to the Sunni Central Waqf Board before instituting a suit under Section 5(2) of the UP Muslim Waqf Act 1936, challenging the 26 February 1944 notification declaring the Babri Masjid a Sunni Waqf. The Shia Board contended that since the mosque was built by Mir Baqi, a Shia, it was properly a Shia Waqf and not a Sunni one. This intra-Muslim dispute added another layer of complexity to the Ayodhya controversy.
26 March 1946
The Civil Judge delivered his judgment in Shia Central Waqf Board v Sunni Central Waqf Board (Regular Suit No. 29 of 1945), directing an inspection of the mosque's founding Arabic inscriptions to determine whether it was a Shia or Sunni endowment. This case produced the fourth version of the reading of the Babri Masjid's founding inscriptions — inscriptions that recorded its date of construction and builder and were critical evidence before the Supreme Court.
30 March 1946
The judgment of the Civil Judge recorded the reading of the Babri Masjid's founding inscription by Inspector Sr. A Akhtar Abbas, which stated: 'by the order of Shah Babar, Amir Mir Baki built the resting place of angels in 923 A.H.' The second inscription referred to 'Mir Baki of Isphahan in 935 A.H. i.e. 1528-29 AD'. The High Court in 2010 doubted the genuineness of the inscription transcripts, noting that one tablet had been replaced after the 1934 riots and that the Babur-Nama itself contained no reference to a 'Mir Baki Isphahani'.
25 November 1948
The Secretary of the Sunni Central Waqf Board issued a formal notice regarding the charge of Tauliat (trusteeship) of the Babri Masjid, due to the death of the incumbent Mutawalli (trustee). This document establishes that the Sunni Central Waqf Board was actively exercising its administrative functions as the governing body of the Babri Masjid right up to 1948 — just one year before the events of December 1949 that led to the termination of Muslim access to the mosque.
5 January 1949
According to the Nirmohi Akhara's own pleadings in Suit No. 3, the cause of action for its claim to manage the Janmabhoomi temple arose on this date. The Supreme Court and the High Court took note of this admission in the context of limitation — since the Nirmohi Akhara filed its suit only on 17 December 1959, more than 10 years after its stated cause of action arose, a majority of the High Court judges found the suit to be barred by the law of limitation.
2 October 1949
A public meeting was held on the occasion of Vijayadashami at which formal statements were made by Hindu community leaders regarding the Janmabhoomi site at Ayodhya. This meeting, held just over two months before the idol placement of December 1949, documents the organised and escalating Hindu mobilisation around the Ram Janmabhoomi issue in the crucial months leading up to the events that transformed the dispute.
12 November 1949
A police picket was posted at the Babri Masjid site following reports of increasing Hindu activity in and around the mosque premises, including the partial destruction of grave-mounds attributed to Hindu Bairagis. The picket continued in augmented strength as communal tensions escalated in the weeks leading up to the decisive events of December 1949. K K Nayyar, the Deputy Commissioner, reported on the picket's presence in his letter of 16 December 1949 to the Home Secretary of Uttar Pradesh.
29 November 1949
Kripal Singh, the Superintendent of Police at Faizabad, submitted a detailed letter to K K Nayar, the Deputy Commissioner, after personally inspecting the Babri Masjid site. He warned: 'The plan appears to be to surround the mosque in such a way that entry for the Muslims will be very difficult and ultimately they might be forced to abandon the mosque.' He also reported a strong rumour that Hindus would attempt a forcible entry to install a deity at Puranmashi — a premonition that proved accurate within weeks.
10 December 1949
Mohd Ibrahim, the Waqf Inspector, submitted a formal report to the Secretary of the Babri Masjid stating that Muslims were being prevented from offering Namaz Isha (the night prayer) at the mosque due to fear of Hindus and Sikhs gathering around the premises. This report, submitted less than two weeks before the idol placement, documents that Muslim access to the Babri Masjid had already been effectively curtailed before the events of 22-23 December 1949.
16 December 1949
K K Nayyar, the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate of Faizabad, addressed a formal communication to Govind Narayan, the Home Secretary, reporting on the tense communal situation at the disputed site. He described a magnificent temple that had once stood at the site and reported on Bairagi activities. This was also the date on which the last namaz was offered in the Babri Masjid — Muslims were effectively unable to offer prayers after this date due to the charged atmosphere surrounding the mosque.
22 December 1949
In the most consequential single event before the demolition of 1992, the interior of the Babri Masjid was desecrated when a group of approximately fifty to sixty persons broke open its locks during the night and placed idols of Lord Ram — including the idol of Ram Lalla (infant Rama) — under the central dome of the mosque. This act instantly transformed the nature of the dispute. It triggered immediate administrative action, rendered impossible any resumption of Muslim worship, and set in motion the legal proceedings that culminated in the Supreme Court's judgment seven decades later.
23 December 1949
The Waqf Inspector submitted a report on the condition of the Babri Masjid the day after the idol placement, stating that the keys of the mosque remained with the Muslims and that only Friday prayers had been being offered. This report — the last independent Muslim administrative record of the mosque before the court attachment order — documented the state of Muslim possession and access to the mosque immediately before the events of 22-23 December 1949 irrevocably altered the situation.
25 December 1949
K K Nayar, the Deputy Commissioner, recorded that puja and bhog were being offered to the idols inside the Babri Masjid as usual — three days after the idol placement. Despite receiving directions from the State Government to remove the idols, Nayar formally recorded his refusal, stating: 'If Government still insisted that removal should be carried out in the face of these facts, I would request to replace me by another officer.' This remarkable official record of a senior district officer refusing a direct government order effectively allowed the idol installation to become permanent.
26 December 1949
K K Nayar addressed a letter to the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh reporting on the events following the idol placement of 22-23 December 1949, defending his decision not to remove the idols, and explaining the practical and communal difficulties that would arise from any attempt to do so. This letter, along with his second letter of 27 December 1949, constitutes the primary administrative record of the district government's deliberate inaction in the critical days after the idol installation.
27 December 1949
K K Nayar addressed a second letter to the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, continuing his explanation of the situation at the Babri Masjid following the idol placement. Together with his letter of 26 December 1949, this letter documents the senior district administrator's conscious decision not to comply with the government's order to remove the idols — a decision that effectively made the idol installation irreversible and permanently altered the character of the dispute.
29 December 1949
The Additional City Magistrate, Faizabad-cum-Ayodhya, issued a preliminary order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, recognising an imminent threat to public peace. Simultaneously, an attachment order was issued placing the inner courtyard under state custody. Sri Priya Datt Ram, Chairman of the Municipal Board of Faizabad, was appointed as the court Receiver of the inner courtyard. This attachment and receivership arrangement remained operative for decades as the litigation progressed through the courts.
5 January 1950
The court-appointed Receiver, Sri Priya Datt Ram, formally took charge of the inner courtyard and prepared a detailed inventory of all attached properties and religious articles. Under the Magistrate's order, only two or three designated pujaris were permitted to enter to perform daily religious rites — bhog and puja. Members of the general public were restricted from entering and could only offer darshan from beyond the grill-brick wall. This marked the formal commencement of state-managed judicial custody of the disputed site.
13 January 1950
Gopal Singh Visharad filed Suit No. 1 of 1950 before the Civil Judge at Faizabad on this date — the actual date of institution recorded in the court register. The Supreme Court noted this date as distinct from 16 January 1950 (when the ad-interim injunction was granted). Visharad alleged that government officials were unlawfully preventing him from entering the inner courtyard to offer worship to the idols of Lord Ram, making this the first civil suit directly arising from the idol placement of December 1949.
14 January 1950
The cause of action for Suit 1 filed by Gopal Singh Visharad is stated in the plaint to have formally arisen on this date, when Visharad was specifically prevented from entering the inner courtyard to perform worship. This date was relevant to the question of limitation — whether the suits were filed within the prescribed period after the cause of action arose — a question that determined the fate of several of the competing suits before the High Court and Supreme Court.
16 January 1950
Gopal Singh Visharad's Suit No. 1 was listed before the Civil Judge at Faizabad who granted an ad-interim injunction on the same day, restraining interference with Visharad's right to worship at the site. This was the first judicial order in the civil litigation arising directly from the December 1949 idol placement, and it began the formal court proceedings that would not reach their final conclusion until the Supreme Court's unanimous verdict 69 years later.
19 January 1950
The ad-interim injunction of 16 January 1950 was modified by the Civil Judge to specifically restrain any person from removing the idols of Lord Ram from the disputed inner courtyard, and to prohibit interference with the performance of puja. This modified injunction gave formal judicial protection to the idols placed inside the mosque in December 1949, preventing their removal even under government orders — a protection that the idols retained until the Supreme Court's final adjudication of title in 2019.
1 February 1950
The date by which the government defendants were required to file their written statements in Suit 1 filed by Gopal Singh Visharad. The defendants subsequently filed their written statements on 21 February 1950 despite having filed objections, establishing their formal participation in the litigation. These written statements set out the government's position on the nature of the attachment and the receivership that had been put in place following the idol placement.
21 February 1950
The defendants in Suit 1 filed their written statements before the Civil Judge at Faizabad, formally entering their appearance in the first civil suit arising from the December 1949 idol placement. The filing of written statements by all parties — including the government defendants who had been operating the receivership — established the framework of the civil litigation that would expand over the following decades to encompass five suits and ultimately reach the Supreme Court.
1 April 1950
A Court Commissioner was appointed by the Civil Judge to conduct a physical inspection of the disputed premises and prepare a detailed site map. The appointment was made to create an accurate official record of the layout, measurements, and physical features of the site — including the mosque building, the Ram Chabutra, the Sita Rasoi, and other structures — providing the evidentiary foundation for adjudicating the competing claims of the parties in Suit 1.
25 May 1950
The Court Commissioner submitted his preliminary report to the Trial Court — a report later supplemented by his final report of 25 June 1950. These reports, accompanied by site plans, created the first formal official cartographic record of the disputed premises as they stood in 1950, shortly after the idol placement. The maps and reports became foundational documentary evidence in all subsequent decades of litigation.
25 June 1950
The Court Commissioner submitted his final detailed report to the Trial Court, accompanied by two site plans — Plan No. 1 and Plan No. 2 — depicting the complete layout of the disputed premises including the inner and outer courtyards, the three-domed mosque structure, the Ramchabutra, and the grill-brick wall. These plans provided a contemporaneous official record of the site's condition in 1950, shortly after the idol placement, and became foundational evidence in all subsequent decades of litigation.
3 August 1950
The Court Commissioner submitted a supplementary report to the Trial Court documenting additional details of the disputed premises. This report — filed alongside the site plans of May and June 1950 — forms part of the official contemporaneous record of the state of the disputed site immediately following the December 1949 idol placement and the subsequent court attachment, providing a baseline against which all subsequent changes to the site could be measured.
5 December 1950
Paramhans Ramchandra Das instituted Suit No. 2 of 1950 before the Civil Judge at Faizabad, seeking reliefs broadly similar to Suit 1 — the right to perform worship at the disputed site without interference. This second Hindu suit reinforced the legal claims to worship rights at the disputed site. Suit 2 was later withdrawn by the plaintiff on 18 September 1990 as the litigation had by then migrated to the High Court and Suit 5 had been filed by the deity itself.
3 March 1951
The Trial Court at Faizabad confirmed the ad-interim injunction — issued on 16 January 1950 and modified on 19 January 1950 — as a regular interim order to operate during the full pendency of Suit 1. The confirmed order preserved: (i) the idols of Lord Ram in situ; (ii) designated pujaris performing daily worship; and (iii) public access restricted to darshan from beyond the grill-brick wall — an arrangement that persisted for the next 35 years until the opening of the locks in February 1986.
30 July 1953
An order was passed by the Additional City Magistrate directing that the file in the Section 145 CrPC proceedings — under which the inner courtyard had been attached in December 1949 and a Receiver appointed — be closed and transferred. This order formally wound up the criminal law attachment proceedings while the civil litigation continued, reflecting the transition from emergency administrative management to formal civil adjudication of the competing claims.
31 July 1954
The Additional City Magistrate issued an order in relation to the continuing proceedings arising from the December 1949 attachment. This order formed part of the transitional administrative and judicial management of the disputed site as the criminal proceedings under Section 145 CrPC were concluded and the matter was left entirely to the civil courts to adjudicate through the pending suits.
26 May 1955
The High Court of Allahabad dismissed the appeal filed against the Trial Court's interim order of 3 March 1951, upholding the status quo arrangement at the disputed site. The dismissal meant that the regime established after the idol placement of December 1949 — idols in situ, restricted pujari access, public kept out — continued unchanged. This arrangement persisted for the next three decades until the District Judge's order opening the locks in February 1986.
17 December 1959
The Nirmohi Akhara instituted Suit No. 3 of 1959 through its Mahant before the Civil Judge at Faizabad, claiming that its absolute right to manage the Janmasthan temple had been impacted by the 1949 Magistrate's attachment order and the appointment of a court Receiver. The Akhara sought a decree for the management and charge of the disputed temple premises. A majority of the High Court judges later found this suit to be barred by limitation, having been filed more than 10 years after the cause of action arose.
9 February 1961
The City Magistrate issued a clarification regarding the scope of the December 1949 attachment order, specifically addressing what was and was not covered by the attachment — defining the precise boundaries of the inner courtyard under court receivership. This clarification was relevant to the Nirmohi Akhara's claim in Suit 3 that its management rights had been impacted by the attachment, and to the question of whether the Akhara had any residual rights over the outer courtyard.
18 December 1961
The Sunni Central Waqf Board, along with nine Muslim residents of Ayodhya, filed Suit No. 4 of 1961 before the Civil Judge at Faizabad. The suit sought a declaration that the entire disputed site constituted a public mosque and Waqf property, and delivery of possession upon removal of the idols placed in December 1949. Suit 4 was designated as the lead case in the consolidated proceedings and the Muslim parties' primary vehicle for asserting title to the disputed premises.
8 August 1962
During evidence-recording in the consolidated suits, the Sunni Central Waqf Board formally stated on record: 'the property in suit is the property dedicated to Almighty God and is a mosque for the use of the entire Muslim community at large.' This statement articulated the core Muslim position — that the Babri Masjid was Waqf property exclusively dedicated to God and the Muslim community, and could not be shared, divided, or transferred to any other party.
21 December 1962
An application was filed by Baba Abhiram Das — who is named in both the FIR of 23 December 1949 and the chargesheet of 1 February 1950 as the person primarily responsible for placing the idols inside the Babri Masjid — in the course of the civil proceedings. This application established a connection between the person who physically placed the idols and the ongoing civil litigation, and was referred to by the Supreme Court in its assessment of the events of December 1949.
28 August 1963
The Sunni Central Waqf Board made a further formal statement in the consolidated proceedings, recording that in the alternative — even if the Hindu defendants were found to have any right in the disputed property — those rights had stood extinguished by lapse of time. This alternative plea of limitation and adverse possession became a significant strand of the Muslim parties' legal strategy throughout the ensuing decades of litigation.
6 January 1964
The trial of Suits 1, 3 and 4 was consolidated into a single proceeding, with Suit 4 (filed by the Sunni Central Waqf Board) designated as the leading case. Consolidation ensured that all competing claims — Hindu worship rights, Nirmohi Akhara management rights, and Muslim mosque ownership — were adjudicated together by the same court, avoiding contradictory findings and enabling a comprehensive determination of all rights over the disputed site.
18 December 1985
The Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas (Trust) was constituted for the purpose of managing the estate and affairs of the Janmabhoomi — a VHP-affiliated trust that became the organisational backbone of the temple movement for the following decades. The constitution of this trust was an important precursor to Suit 5, filed in 1989, in which the deity and the birthplace itself were represented as plaintiffs through a next friend.
24 December 1985
The trial judge in Suit 4 (the Sunni Central Waqf Board's suit), in his judgment on a preliminary issue dated 24 December 1985, observed that though the area occupied by the disputed structure was defined and limited, the boundaries of the Ram Janmabhoomi as a sacred site were much broader in Hindu religious understanding. This observation formed part of the preliminary issue determinations that preceded the full trial of the suits.
25 January 1986
Umesh Chandra Pandey filed an application before the Trial Court at Faizabad requesting that the locks on the grill-brick wall of the inner courtyard be opened to allow the general Hindu public to enter and perform darshan and worship of the idols of Lord Ram within the disputed structure. The application argued that the 36-year restriction on public entry was no longer justified.
1 February 1986
The District Judge of Faizabad issued directions to open the locks on the grill-brick wall, permitting Hindu devotees to enter the inner courtyard and offer direct darshan and worship to the idols of Lord Ram. This reversed the 36-year restriction on public entry in place since January 1950. The unlocking was widely celebrated by the Hindu community but immediately challenged by Muslim parties through a Writ Petition before the High Court of Allahabad.
2 February 1986
The High Court of Allahabad issued an initial order in the Writ Petition challenging the District Judge's unlocking direction of 1 February 1986. This early order was part of the High Court's engagement with the challenge to the unlocking before the fuller status quo order of 3 February 1986 was passed — forming part of the documented judicial response to the opening of the locks.
3 February 1986
The High Court of Allahabad, hearing the Writ Petition challenging the District Judge's unlocking order, passed an ad-interim order directing that until further orders, the nature of the property as it then existed shall not be altered. This status quo order was intended to preserve the physical character of the site — a restraint that became critically significant in the context of the demolition that occurred six years later in December 1992 in violation of this very order.
22 February 1986
The High Court of Allahabad passed a further order pursuant to the Writ Petition challenging the unlocking, permitting Rajendra Singh Visharad (as successor to Gopal Singh Visharad in Suit 1) to be added as a party respondent to the Writ Petition proceedings. This order expanded the cast of parties before the High Court as the litigation surrounding the opening of the locks continued in parallel with the main title suits.
7 January 1987
The High Court passed an order in Suit 1 (the Gopal Singh Visharad suit) pursuant to which certain amendments to the pleadings were permitted. This order formed part of the ongoing case management of the five consolidated suits before the Allahabad High Court after their transfer from the Civil Court at Faizabad in July 1989, and documents the evolving scope of the litigation as the parties refined their claims and defences.
1 July 1989
Suit No. 5 of 1989 was instituted before the Civil Judge, Faizabad, by: (i) Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman — the deity of Lord Ram as a juristic person; and (ii) Asthan Shri Ram Janam Bhumi, Ayodhya — through a next friend. The suit sought a declaration of title over the entire disputed premises and a perpetual injunction against interference with construction of a temple. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the title of the deity in its 2019 judgment, making this suit the most consequential of all five.
10 July 1989
All five suits were transferred from the Civil Court at Faizabad to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in recognition of the extraordinary national importance and complexity of the Ayodhya dispute. The transfer ensured that competing claims — Hindu worship and title rights, Nirmohi Akhara management rights, and Muslim mosque ownership — would be heard by a court of sufficient constitutional authority and stature.
21 July 1989
A three-judge Full Bench was constituted by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad specifically for the trial of the five transferred suits. The Full Bench constitution reflected the High Court's recognition of the exceptional importance of the Ayodhya matter. The Bench began laying down the procedural framework and timetable for the trial, which would ultimately run for over two decades.
14 August 1989
The Full Bench of the High Court of Allahabad passed an interim order directing all parties to maintain status quo with respect to the disputed property during the pendency of the proceedings. This order preserved the physical state of the site and prohibited any construction, demolition, or structural alteration — a restraint that the kar sevaks violated in demolishing the Babri Masjid on 6 December 1992.
9 November 1989
The VHP performed the Shilanyas (foundation stone laying) ceremony for the proposed Ram temple at Ayodhya. The ceremony was conducted at a spot adjacent to but outside the disputed structure, on land acquired by the government. This was one of the most significant mobilisation events of the temple movement — attended by hundreds of thousands of devotees — and was permitted by the Rajiv Gandhi government. The Shilanyas and the active movement for temple construction from 30 September 1989 were directly referenced in the plaint of Suit 5.
10 January 1990
An order was passed by the Supreme Court on an application filed on behalf of the State Archaeology Department, directing certain steps with respect to the disputed site. This order was passed during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court after all five suits had been transferred, and documents the Supreme Court's early engagement with the Ayodhya matter before the main appeal proceedings began.
15 February 1990
The tenth defendant in Suit 4 filed a written statement before the High Court of Allahabad, denying the claims of the Sunni Central Waqf Board and asserting that the disputed site was not a mosque but rather the birthplace of Lord Rama. This written statement — filed over 28 years after the original suit was instituted — illustrates the extraordinary duration of the pre-trial pleadings phase of the Ayodhya litigation.
25 September 1990
L.K. Advani, President of the Bharatiya Janata Party, launched his historic Rath Yatra (chariot procession) from the Somnath temple in Gujarat, aimed at reaching Ayodhya for the Karseva on 30 October 1990. The Rath Yatra travelled approximately 10,000 km through eight states, galvanising unprecedented popular support for the Ram temple movement. The procession triggered communal riots across the country and was stopped when Advani was arrested by the Bihar government of Chief Minister Laloo Prasad Yadav at Samastipur on 23 October 1990.
30 October 1990
The first major Karseva (voluntary religious labour) was attempted at Ayodhya, with hundreds of thousands of kar sevaks converging on the city with the intent of commencing construction of the Ram temple at the disputed site. Uttar Pradesh Police and the CRPF opened fire on the crowd when kar sevaks attempted to storm the disputed structure. Several kar sevaks were killed in the police firing — exact numbers remain disputed. The event became a defining moment in the political mobilisation around the Ram Mandir issue.
13 May 1991
Four prominent historians — including Professors Suvira Jaiswal and Shirin Musavi who later deposed as expert witnesses — jointly prepared a document titled 'History versus Casuistry: Evidence of the Ramjanmabhoomi from the Muslim Side' challenging the archaeological and historical claims advanced by the VHP in support of the temple movement. This document was placed in evidence before the High Court and extensively cited before the Supreme Court as part of the academic debate over the historical evidence.
11 July 1991
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, enacted by Parliament, is deemed to have come into force on this date with respect to its main substantive provisions under Section 1(3). The Act froze the religious character of all places of worship as they existed on 15 August 1947, prohibiting conversion of any place from one religion to another. The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site was expressly excluded from the Act's operation owing to the pending litigation.
10 September 1991
The Union Minister of Home Affairs explained the purpose of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 on the floor of the Lok Sabha, stating: 'We see this Bill as a measure to provide and develop our glorious traditions of love, peace and harmony.' The Minister's statement of Parliament's intent in enacting the legislation was quoted by the Supreme Court in its 2019 judgment, which held that the Act embodied a constitutional commitment to preserving the religious character of all places of worship as of 15 August 1947.
12 September 1991
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Bill was addressed before the Rajya Sabha, completing Parliament's legislative record on the Act. The Rajya Sabha debates, together with the Lok Sabha debates of 10 September 1991, provided the legislative history of the Act that the Supreme Court examined in its 2019 judgment to understand Parliament's intent in freezing the religious character of all places of worship — with the express exclusion of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site from the Act's operation.
18 September 1991
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 received Presidential assent and Sections 3, 6 and 8 came into force immediately on this date of enactment. Section 3 prohibits the conversion of any place of worship of any religious denomination into a place of worship of a different denomination. The Supreme Court in 2019 held that the Act was a legislative intervention of great constitutional significance, embodying India's commitment to non-retrogression in matters of religious character of places of worship.
7 October 1991
The State of Uttar Pradesh initiated land acquisition proceedings under Sections 4(1), 6 and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, issuing acquisition notifications on 7 October and 10 October 1991 over 2.77 acres comprising the disputed premises and adjoining lands. The stated purpose was development of pilgrim amenities at Ayodhya. The acquisition was challenged before the High Court, which struck it down on 11 December 1992 — just days after the demolition had already rendered the question largely academic.
15 November 1991
Further notifications or orders were issued in connection with the State of Uttar Pradesh's land acquisition proceedings of October 1991, completing the formal acquisition process for the 2.77-acre disputed site and adjoining areas. These notifications formed part of the documentary record of the acquisition that was subsequently challenged before the High Court and struck down on 11 December 1992.
30 April 1992
Deoki Nandan Agarwal, the third plaintiff in Suit 5 (suing as next friend of the deity Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman), formally stated in proceedings before the High Court that the idol was placed inside the central dome of the Babri Masjid on 22-23 December 1949 by Paramhans Ramchandra Das and Baba Abhiram Das along with others. This formal admission by the Hindu side's own plaintiff identifying the specific actors in the December 1949 idol placement was cited as evidence before the Supreme Court.
23 November 1992
The High Court of Allahabad passed an order in the consolidated suits relating to the amendment of the pleadings in Suit 4 (the Sunni Central Waqf Board's suit) to incorporate the events of 6 December 1992 — the demolition of the Babri Masjid — into the record. A replication was also filed to the amended written statement. This order enabled the parties to formally place the demolition and its legal consequences before the court as part of the ongoing litigation.
6 December 1992
In one of the most consequential events in post-independence Indian history, a large mob of kar sevaks demolished the 16th-century Babri Masjid, the boundary wall, and the Ram Chabutra at Ayodhya, in direct violation of Supreme Court status quo orders and assurances given by the Uttar Pradesh government. A makeshift temple was immediately constructed under the central dome and idols installed. The demolition triggered nationwide communal riots claiming over 2,000 lives. The Supreme Court's 2019 judgment condemned the demolition as a grave violation of the rule of law.
7 December 1992
A stone inscription was recovered from the debris of the demolished Babri Masjid on 6-7 December 1992. This inscription — reportedly in Sanskrit — became a major piece of contested archaeological evidence before the Supreme Court. The Hindu parties argued it proved the prior existence of a Hindu temple at the site, while the Muslim parties challenged its provenance and authenticity, arguing it had been planted or misidentified.
11 December 1992
The High Court of Allahabad delivered its judgment setting aside the State of Uttar Pradesh's land acquisition notifications of October 1991, holding the acquisition of 2.77 acres to be legally invalid. The judgment came just five days after the demolition of the Babri Masjid, by which time the physical character of the site had already been irreversibly altered — rendering the question of the lawful acquisition effectively moot.
16 December 1992
The Liberhan Commission was constituted by the Government of India under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952, headed by Justice M S Liberhan (retired), to enquire into the circumstances leading to the demolition of the Babri Masjid structure at Ayodhya on 6 December 1992. The Commission was initially given three months to complete its work but took 17 years to submit its final report, becoming one of the longest-running commissions of inquiry in Indian history.
3 April 1993
The Central Government acquired approximately 68 acres including the disputed site through the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993. The Act abated all pending civil suits under Sections 3 and 4. Simultaneously, the President made a Reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution asking whether a Hindu temple or religious structure had existed at the site prior to construction of the Babri Masjid. Writ Petitions challenging the Act were filed before both the High Court and the Supreme Court.
30 June 1993
Dr S P Ramesh, who had served as a senior official of the Archaeological Survey of India, retired from government service on this date. Dr Ramesh later deposed as an expert witness in the proceedings before the High Court. His evidence regarding the ASI's archaeological work at the disputed site and its findings was part of the extensive expert testimony considered by both the High Court and the Supreme Court in assessing the archaeological evidence.
24 October 1994
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered its landmark judgment in Dr M Ismail Faruqui v Union of India. The Bench upheld the Ayodhya Acquisition Act 1993 except for Section 4(3) — providing for abatement of suits — which was struck down as unconstitutional. The Presidential Reference was declined. The Central Government was appointed statutory Receiver. The court's controversial observation that a mosque is not an essential part of Islamic religious practice became a subject of sustained challenge.
11 January 1996
The formal statement of Mr Zafaryab Jilani, appearing for the Sunni Central Waqf Board, was recorded in court to the effect that: 'That the mosque was situate on a Nazul Plot No. 583 of the Khasra of 1931 of Mohalla Kot Ramchandra known as Ramkot at Ayodhya.' This statement was significant as it represented the Muslim parties' formal identification of the revenue record and cadastral identity of the land on which the Babri Masjid stood.
24 July 1996
The Full Bench of the High Court of Allahabad formally commenced recording of oral evidence in the consolidated suits — a decade-long process in which parties produced 88 witnesses including witnesses of fact, expert historians, archaeologists, epigraphists, numismatists, and religious scholars. The evidence-recording involved documents in Sanskrit, Hindi, Urdu, Persian, Arabic, Turkish, French and English, spanning subjects from archaeology and history to Islamic theology and Hindu scripture.
1 August 2002
The High Court of Allahabad, during the course of the evidentiary hearings, first formally proposed that an excavation be carried out at the disputed site by the Archaeological Survey of India, in order to scientifically investigate whether any earlier structure — particularly a Hindu temple — lay beneath the surface. This proposal was the beginning of the process that led to the GPR survey of October 2002 and ultimately the excavation directed in March 2003.
23 October 2002
The High Court issued directions to the Archaeological Survey of India to conduct a scientific investigation of the disputed site using Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) technology or Geo-Radiology. The non-invasive survey was intended to detect sub-surface anomalies — particularly any buried structures — without disturbing the ground. The GPR survey was conducted by a specialist agency commissioned by the ASI.
17 February 2003
The GPR survey report was submitted to the High Court. It indicated the presence of sub-surface anomalies consistent with ancient and contemporaneous structures, including possible pillars, foundations, wall slabs, and flooring extending across a large portion of the disputed site — with 39 anomalies identified. Muslim parties raised objections to the methodology and conclusions. The GPR findings provided the evidentiary basis for the High Court's subsequent direction for physical excavation.
5 March 2003
The High Court directed the ASI to undertake physical excavation of the disputed site. A fourteen-member expert team was constituted and a site plan specifying ninety trenches was prepared. The excavation was conducted under the supervision of judicial officers, with observers from all parties present. The entire process was videographed to ensure complete transparency and impartiality.
11 March 2003
The fourteen-member ASI expert team was formally constituted by the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India pursuant to the High Court's excavation order of 5 March 2003. The team comprised archaeologists, epigraphists, and other experts drawn from ASI's national resources. The team immediately commenced preparatory work including the preparation of the detailed site plan specifying the locations of the ninety trenches to be excavated.
26 March 2003
The High Court issued further detailed directions for the conduct of the excavation, specifically requiring the recording of the nature of all findings in each trench as work progressed. These directions were intended to ensure that the excavation was conducted in a scientific and transparent manner, with contemporaneous records of every layer and artefact, so that the findings could withstand the scrutiny of the parties and the court.
8 August 2003
After the completion of the main excavation work, the High Court issued further directions requiring all ninety trenches to be kept intact — not filled or disturbed — so as to facilitate the ASI team in completing its study and finalising its report. This order was passed between the completion of fieldwork and the submission of the final report on 22 August 2003, ensuring the integrity of the excavated evidence during the report preparation phase.
22 August 2003
The ASI submitted its final excavation report to the High Court. Having excavated ninety trenches over approximately five months, the ASI concluded that a massive structure — characterised as non-Islamic and consistent with the remains of a large Hindu temple complex — lay beneath the demolished Babri Masjid. The report documented nearly fifty pillar bases, decorated tiles, stone blocks, and structural remains from multiple periods. This report became the single most important piece of evidence in the Supreme Court's 2019 adjudication.
3 February 2005
The High Court of Allahabad directed that the ASI excavation report shall be formally admitted as evidence in the consolidated suits. Until this order, the report had been submitted to the court but had not been formally proved and admitted as evidence in the proceedings. The admission order enabled the parties to cross-examine the ASI officers who prepared the report and to file their objections to its findings, which became a major part of the evidentiary phase of the proceedings.
22 April 2009
The formal statement of Mr Zafaryab Jilani for the Sunni Central Waqf Board was recorded under Order X Rule 2 of the CPC before the High Court. The statement recorded: 'For the purpose of this case there is no dispute about the faith of Hindu devotees of Lord Rama regarding the birth of Lord Rama at Ayodhya as described in Balmiki Ramayana or as existing today. It is however disputed and denied that the site of Babri Masjid was the place of birth of Lord Rama.' This formal concession became an important element in the Supreme Court's 2019 reasoning.
30 June 2009
The Liberhan Commission, constituted on 16 December 1992 to inquire into the demolition of the Babri Masjid, submitted its final report to the Government of India after 17 years — the longest-running commission of inquiry in India's history, having taken 399 sittings. The report named 68 individuals as responsible for the demolition, including senior BJP and VHP leaders. The report was tabled in Parliament in November 2009 and became a significant document in the political and criminal proceedings arising from the demolition.
8 February 2010
The Supreme Court of India, on appeal from an order of the Allahabad High Court, allowed the appointment of Triloki Nath Pande as next friend of the plaintiff deities — Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman and Asthan Shri Ram Janam Bhumi — in Suit 5, in place of Dr T P Verma who had serious health problems. This order ensured that the deity plaintiffs in Suit 5 were properly represented before the High Court in the run-up to its landmark judgment of 30 September 2010.
18 March 2010
The Allahabad High Court, pursuant to the Supreme Court's order of 8 February 2010, formally appointed Triloki Nath Pande as next friend of the plaintiff deities — Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman and Asthan Shri Ram Janam Bhumi — in Suit 5. This appointment completed the procedural formality necessary to ensure that the deity plaintiffs were properly represented as the High Court moved towards its landmark judgment delivered on 30 September 2010.
30 September 2010
The Full Bench of the High Court of Allahabad — Justice S U Khan, Justice Sudhir Agarwal, and Justice D V Sharma — delivered its judgment in the five consolidated suits. The court had before it 533 documentary exhibits, depositions of 87 witnesses across 13,990 pages, over a thousand reference books, and extensive archaeological artefacts. By majority, Justices Khan and Agarwal directed a three-way partition allotting one-third each to Hindus, Muslims, and Nirmohi Akhara. Justice D V Sharma decreed Suit 5 entirely for the Hindu parties. All parties appealed to the Supreme Court.
9 May 2011
A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court admitted several Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions filed against the Allahabad High Court's judgment of 30 September 2010 and stayed its operation. The three-way partition directed by the High Court was suspended. Parties were directed to maintain status quo at the disputed site in accordance with the Ismail Faruqui directions, pending final adjudication by the Supreme Court.
10 September 2013
The Supreme Court issued directions for summoning the digital record of evidence and pleadings from the Allahabad High Court and for furnishing translated copies to all parties. Further similar procedural directions were issued on 24 February 2014 (240214), 31 October 2015 (311015), and 11 August 2017 (110817), progressively organising the massive evidentiary record — comprising thousands of pages of depositions, documentary exhibits, historical texts, and archaeological reports — preparatory to the final hearing.
10 August 2015
A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court allowed the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, to replace the old and worn-out tarpaulin sheets over the makeshift temple structure at the disputed site — under which the idols of Lord Ram were housed — with new sheets of identical size and quality. The court's careful stipulation that the new sheets match the old ones exactly reflected vigilance in ensuring that the physical footprint of the makeshift structure was not expanded during the pendency of the appeals.
5 December 2017
A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court rejected a plea for reference of the appeals to a larger Constitutional Bench in light of certain observations in the Ismail Faruqui judgment of 1994. The Supreme Court held that the existing bench was competent to decide the appeals and that no larger bench reference was warranted. This cleared a significant procedural obstacle and brought the case closer to the final substantive hearing.
14 March 2018
A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the 1994 Constitution Bench judgment in Ismail Faruqui v Union of India — which held that a mosque is not an essential part of Islamic religious practice — required reconsideration by a larger Bench. Muslim parties argued this observation had prejudiced their rights in the Ayodhya dispute. The court reserved its decision, which was delivered on 27 September 2018.
27 September 2018
The three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, by a majority of 2:1, declined to refer the Ismail Faruqui judgment for reconsideration by a larger Bench, holding that the observations regarding mosques were not essential to the ratio of that decision and did not require revisitation. With this final procedural hurdle cleared, the Bench directed the Civil Appeals be listed for final substantive hearing before a Constitution Bench.
8 January 2019
The Chief Justice of India constituted a five-judge Constitution Bench under Order VI Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, to hear and decide the Ayodhya appeals. The Bench comprised Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice S A Bobde, Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan, and Justice S Abdul Nazeer — representing diverse regional and religious backgrounds, underlining the national importance and sensitivity of the proceedings.
10 January 2019
The Supreme Court directed the Registry to physically inspect the voluminous record of evidence and pleadings transferred from the Allahabad High Court, and to engage official translators as necessary for the numerous documents in Hindi, Urdu, Persian, Arabic, Sanskrit and other languages. This was an essential preparatory step before the Constitution Bench could meaningfully engage with the evidentiary record in the final hearing.
26 February 2019
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench referred all parties to court-appointed and court-monitored mediation, expressing the hope that a consensual settlement could be reached addressing not only the legal dimensions of the title dispute but also the deeper religious, emotional, and communal aspects of the Ayodhya controversy. Mediation was ordered as a parallel process, with the court retaining jurisdiction to proceed to judgment if no settlement was achieved.
8 March 2019
The Supreme Court constituted the mediation panel comprising: (i) Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, former Judge of the Supreme Court; (ii) Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, spiritual leader and founder of the Art of Living Foundation; and (iii) Mr Sriram Panchu, Senior Advocate and authority on Alternative Dispute Resolution. The proceedings were conducted in strict confidentiality away from the media, in the hope that a consensual settlement might be reached.
10 May 2019
The extended deadline for the mediation panel expired. Despite months of confidential sessions, no settlement acceptable to all parties had been reached. The intractability of the dispute — involving deeply held religious beliefs, competing historical narratives, and irreconcilable legal positions — made a consensual resolution extremely difficult. The Supreme Court thereafter directed the final hearing on merits to commence from 6 August 2019.
2 August 2019
The Supreme Court, noting that no settlement had been achieved through mediation, formally directed that the hearing of the Civil Appeals on merits would commence from 6 August 2019. Parties remained free to approach the mediation panel to pursue settlement, but the court made clear that the judicial hearing would proceed simultaneously without further adjournment — setting the final countdown for the adjudication of the seven-decade-old dispute.
6 August 2019
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court commenced the final hearing of the Civil Appeals on merits. Senior counsel for all parties — including the Sunni Central Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara, Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman, and the Union of India — presented exhaustive oral arguments over 40 days on title, adverse possession, historical and archaeological evidence, the ASI excavation report, Islamic law relating to mosques, and the constitutional framework. This was one of the longest final hearings in the Supreme Court's history.
18 September 2019
During the ongoing final hearing, the mediation panel submitted a report to the Constitution Bench indicating that some parties desired to explore a settlement. The Supreme Court observed that while hearings would continue, parties wishing to pursue mediation could do so and place any concluded settlement before the court. The hearing thus proceeded in parallel with any residual mediation efforts.
23 September 2019
Dr Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate and lead counsel for the Muslim parties (Sunni Central Waqf Board), made submissions during the final hearing before the Constitution Bench responding to arguments advanced by Mr K Parasaran (counsel for the Hindu parties) on the question of limitation — specifically whether Section 10 of the Limitation Act, which applies to trust property, assisted the Hindu parties' case on the time-bar issue.
24 September 2019
In a notable gesture of professional courtesy during the final hearing, Dr Rajeev Dhavan clarified that he had been informed by Mr Parasaran that the Hindu parties were in fact not relying on the benefit of Section 10 of the Limitation Act in their submissions. The Supreme Court recorded this clarification in its judgment as an instance of the 'fair tradition of the Bar of this Court'. The clarification resolved a potential point of confusion in the arguments on the limitation issue.
16 October 2019
Final arguments in the Ayodhya Civil Appeals were concluded before the Constitution Bench after 40 days of hearing. On the same day, the mediation panel submitted its 'Final Report of the Committee', recording that a conditional settlement had been reached with some parties including the Sunni Central Waqf Board — whose Chairman Mr Zufar Ahmad Faruqi signed an agreement to relinquish all claims subject to conditions. Since the settlement was not signed by all parties and was conditional, the Supreme Court held it could not be treated as a binding concluded agreement, and reserved judgment.
9 November 2019
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court — Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice S A Bobde, Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan, and Justice S Abdul Nazeer — delivered its unanimous landmark judgment. The entire 2.77-acre disputed site was awarded to the Hindu parties for construction of a Ram temple, to be managed through a government-formed trust. The Sunni Central Waqf Board was directed to be given 5 acres of alternative land in Ayodhya for a mosque. The demolition of the Babri Masjid was condemned as a grave violation of the rule of law.
12 December 2019
All petitions seeking review of the Supreme Court's judgment of 9 November 2019 were dismissed. The review petitions, filed primarily by Muslim parties, argued that the judgment suffered from errors apparent on the face of the record. Their dismissal brought the judicial chapter of the Ayodhya dispute to a definitive and final close — the Supreme Court's unanimous verdict standing as the conclusive legal determination of one of the longest-running disputes in Indian legal history.
5 February 2020
Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced in Parliament the formation of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust — the statutory body mandated by the Supreme Court's November 2019 judgment to oversee the construction and management of the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya. The Government simultaneously confirmed the allocation of a 5-acre plot in Dhannipur village, Ayodhya, to the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque.
1 April 2020
The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust held its first formal meeting and formally constituted itself with 15 trustees, beginning the administrative process for the construction and management of the Ram Mandir. The trust's first meeting laid down the organisational framework for overseeing what would become one of the largest temple construction projects in modern Indian history, with a $10 billion development plan for Ayodhya city accompanying the temple construction.
5 August 2020
Prime Minister Narendra Modi performed the Bhoomi Pujan (ground-breaking consecration ceremony) for the construction of the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya, formally commencing temple construction. During the ceremony attended by saints, seers, and dignitaries from across India, Modi laid a 40-kilogram silver brick as the foundation stone. The event was broadcast live nationwide and celebrated as the realisation of a centuries-old Hindu aspiration — coming 492 years after the construction of the Babri Masjid at the same site in 1528.
30 September 2020
A Special CBI Court in Lucknow acquitted all 32 accused persons in the Babri Masjid demolition criminal case, including senior BJP leaders L K Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, and Uma Bharti, as well as VHP leaders Ashok Singhal (deceased) and others. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the demolition of the Babri Masjid on 6 December 1992 was a pre-planned criminal conspiracy. The Supreme Court's civil judgment of 2019 had already held the demolition to be a grave violation of the rule of law.
11 January 2024
The idol of Ram Lalla — the three-billion-year-old black stone sculpture by Mysore artist Arun Yogiraj, selected by the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust as the presiding deity of the Ram Mandir — was formally brought to Ayodhya from Mysore in a grand procession. The idol's arrival at Ayodhya, less than two weeks before the Prana Pratishtha ceremony, was accompanied by elaborate religious rituals and celebrations across the city.
22 January 2024
Prime Minister Narendra Modi served as the Mukhya Yajamana (chief officiating patron) of the Prana Pratishtha (consecration) ceremony of the Ram Mandir, formally installing the idol of Ram Lalla sculpted by Arun Yogiraj as the presiding deity of the temple. The consecration was conducted according to Vedic rites and attended by thousands of saints, dignitaries, and leaders from across India and abroad. Over five lakh (500,000) devotees visited the temple on the first day — the culmination of a dispute spanning 492 years of history and 134 years of formal litigation.
