With the Supreme Court beginning the final hearings in the Babri-Masjid Case, it is vital to understand the progress of events.
How did the controversy evolve?
Chabutra - Chabutra was an uncovered open platform adjoining the Babri Masjid, in Ayodhya, UP.
Hindu priests wanted a temple constructed on the Chabutra to be able to conduct their worship without vagaries of weather.
In 1885, a civil suit was filed, seeking permission to construct a temple over the Ram Chabutara spot.
The Chabutara and Sita Rasoi, worshipped by the Hindus, fall within the ‘outer courtyard’ in a disputed 2.77 acres.
This was separated from the inner courtyard, where the Babri Masjid stood, by a brick wall with iron grills.
This apparent territorial confusions led to the Hindu-Muslim tensions escalating.
The Faizabad sub-judge dismissed the suit on the grounds that granting permission to construct a temple would lead to riots.
Idols - Despite intermediate riots in Ayodhya, the status quo largely continued till December, 1949.
But in December, 1949 a group installed idols inside what they claimed was the disputed structure, and puja was started.
The state government wanted the idols removed.
But the Faizabad district administration felt that doing so would lead to communal violence.
Litigations - Resultantly, the next round of litigations began in 1950.
A resident of Ayodhya filed a title suit before the Civil Judge in Faizabad.
It claimed that the right to worship was being impeded by the state government.
The suit also sought a permanent restriction to prohibit the removal of the idols.
Various other suits were also filed by Muslim boards and individuals claiming that the Babri Masjid was built by Mughal emperor Babur.
To the High Court - Countering the claims were those of the Hindu religious groups, stating that Babur had destroyed the Janmasthan temple in 1528 and built a mosque in its place.
Thus the site became a source of claims and counterclaims on the ownership of the disputed area.
Subsequent to the dispute, the cases were transferred to the Allahabad High Court.
Meanwhile, the Civil Judge, in January, 1950, passed an interim order restraining the removal of the idols.
Thus the puja continued and the public allowed for darshan from beyond the brick-grill wall.
Following appeals, an order was passed to open the locks on the brick-grill wall and allow darshan from inside.
Ram temple - Following the order, the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) sought the restoration of the disputed structure to the Muslims.
As the BMAC launched a protest movement, Hindu organisations also began to mobilise public opinion.
They were in favour of constructing a Ram temple at the disputed site.
The order thus triggered a chain reaction, leading to the demolition of the structure on December 6, 1992.
Acquisition - Meanwhile in 1991, the Uttar Pradesh government acquired 2.77 acres of land, including the premises in dispute.
This, it said, is for the “development of tourism and providing amenities to pilgrims in Ayodhya”.
However, five days after the demolition in 1992, the High Court quashed this order.
Subsequently, in 1993, the central government acquired 67.7 acres under the ‘Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance, 1993, later replaced by an Act.
Later, the Supreme Court, examining the validity of the acquisition Act, struck it down as unconstitutional.
Survey - Oral evidence was recorded and various reference books were presented between 1996 to 2007.
The Allahabad HC, in 2003, directed the Archaeological Survey of India to excavate the area.
In its report, the ASI described “remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India”.
Allahabad HC verdict - In September, 2010 the Allahabad HC ordered a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acres.
It gave a third each to the Nirmohi Akhara sect, the Sunni Central Wakf Board, UP, and Ramlalla Virajman (infant Lord Ram, the presiding deity in the temple).
It was however, a 2-1 majority judgement.
The majority judges held that the disputed structure was raised on an existing structure, the remains of which were used in constructing the new structure.
It was also mentioned that the erstwhile structure was a Hindu temple and it was demolished whereafter the disputed structure was raised.
The minority judge held that that no temple was demolished but the mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples.
Riots and thereafter - After the demolition in 1992, the CBI lodged two FIRs on charges of promoting enmity between groups.
Charges were also filed against some politicians, charging them with criminal conspiracy and acting deliberately to outrage religious feelings.
Later in 2011, the Supreme Court ordered status quo on the disputed site and adjoining 67.7 acres of land acquired by the Centre.
Recently, in August, 2017 the court gave the parties 12 weeks to translate all oral evidence and exhibited documents in various languages.
The process is now complete and the Supreme Court will start final hearings on cross-appeals against the HC order.
