The tussle between Hindus and Muslims over the disputed site at Ayodhya dates back to the 1950s, when the first suit in the case was filed. Over the years, the dispute went through various stages, and had both political and legal ramifications..While Ayodhya and the promise of the Ram Mandir featured in various political manifestos on which elections were contested, the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992, which once stood at this disputed site, snowballed into a massive frenzy of communal riots across the country..While a separate trial in the case concerning the demolition of the Mosque is underway in a court in Uttar Pradesh, the title dispute was finally taken up by the Supreme Court for day-to-day hearing this year, nine years after the decision of the Allahabad High Court was pronounced..TheAllahabad High Court in September 2010 had ruled to trifurcate the disputed site and allot one part each to the Hindus, the Muslims, and the Nirmohi Akhara. This judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court the same year. After a 40-day hearing, the judgment in the appeals was reserved in October 2019..Here is the journey of the case in the Supreme Court – from 2010 to 2019..2010:.December: Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha moves the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Allahabad High Court that granted one-third of the disputed site to the Muslims..2011:.May: Supreme Court stays the verdict of the Allahabad High Court that divided the disputed site of 2.77 acres among the Hindus, the Muslims, and the Nirmohi Akhara. The Court admitted the appeals against the judgment of the High Court delivered in September 2010..2017:.December 5: A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra takes up the Ayodhya dispute for hearing nearly seven years after the filing of the appeals in the case. The hearing in the case is adjourned to February 2018. One counsel seeks for the matter to be referred to a larger bench, while another raises the issue concerning the principle laid down in the 1994 Ismail Farooqui judgment..2018:.February 8: The case gets adjourned to March 2018, with the Supreme Court granting permission to file additional documents. A request for day-to-day hearing is sought, but the Court refuses to consider the same..March 14: The Court dismisses over 30 intervention applications in the Ayodhya dispute and directs the Registry not to entertain filing of any applications by third parties that are not original parties in the appeals or the suits. On March 23, the Court says it will consider if the 1994 decision in Ismail Farooqui needs to be reconsidered by a Constitution bench..March 23: The Muslim parties in the Ayodhya dispute seek reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s rationale in the Ismail Farooqui judgment, which said that Mosque is not an essential part of the practice of offering namaaz in Islam..April 27: The Hindu parties, through Senior Counsel Harish Salve, tells the Court that the dispute was purely a title/property dispute and ought to be treated as such. One of the original plaintiffs in the suit urgedsthe Court against referring the matter to a larger Bench on the ground that religious and political sensitivity of the case cannot be the ground for a title dispute to be heard by a Constitution Bench..May 15: Senior Counsel Rajeev Dhavan, representing the Muslim side, makes a case for referring the case to a larger Bench. He says that a message cannot be sent that Hindu places of worship are more important than Muslim places of worship when Articles 25 and 26 protect everyone’s right to religion..July 13: The Shia Waqf Board tells the Supreme Court that it is willing to donate its share of the land in the disputed site to the Hindus in favour of settling the issue peacefully..Rajeev Dhavan uses the term “Hindu Taliban” for the kar sevaks that demolished the Babri Masjid, drawing a parallel with the destruction of the Bamiyan statues by the Taliban in Afghanistan..July 20: Court objects to the usage of the term “Hindu Taliban”, says it is inappropriate. Courtroom sees a face-off between a lawyer from the Hindu side and Dhavan..Three-Judge Bench of then Chief Justice Dipak Misra with Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer reserves its judgment on whether a larger Bench should consider the decision in the Ismail Farooqui case..September 27: By a 2:1 majority, Court holds that the judgment in Ismail Farooqui case need not be revisited by a larger Bench..October 29: The Ayodhya dispute case is listed before a three-Judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph after ex-CJI Dipak Misra, who was heading the Bench hearing the case, retires..The new Bench defers the hearing to first week of January 2019, with CJI Gogoi stating that the Supreme Court had “other priorities”. Court adjourns the case saying that an “appropriate Bench” will decide the future course of the case..2019:.January 4: The three-Judge Bench defers the hearing in the case to January 10. Court says that the matter will be heard by an appropriate Bench and orders for fixing the date of hearing will be passed by the relevant Bench..January 9: A five-Judge Constitution Bench is notified. The Bench is headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and comprises Justices SA Bobde, NV Ramana, UU Lalit, and DY Chandrachud..January 10: Justice UU Lalit recuses himself from the Bench hearing the Ayodhya case since he had argued for Kalyan Singh, one of the accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case..January 25: A new Constitution Bench is constituted after Justice Lalit recuses himself from the Bench. The new Bench is headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi and comprises Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, and S Abdul Nazeer..January 29: The Central government files an application in the Supreme Court praying that it be allowed to hand over the land surrounding the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area at Ayodhya to its original owners..February 4: A fresh petition relating to the dispute is filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Acquisition of Certain Area At Ayodhya Act, 1993. Pursuant to this Act, the Central government had acquired around 67 acres of land adjacent to the disputed site in Ayodhya..February 26: The Supreme Court urges the parties to once again explore the possibility of mediation to settle the dispute..March 6: Supreme Court reserves its verdict on the question of whether or not the dispute must be referred to mediation..March 8: Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court refers the Ayodhya dispute for mediation. The mediation panel will be chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice FMI Kalifulla, and will also comprise spiritualist Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, and Senior Advocate Sriram Panchu. Court directs for the mediation process to be confidential and prohibits reportage on the mediation process..March 26: Nirmohi Akhara moves an application before the Supreme Court seeking additional directions from the Supreme Court for shifting of the mediation process to Delhi..April 9: The Nirmohi Akhara files an application seeking to be impleaded in the case concerning the restoration of land surrounding the dispute Babri Masjid (superfluous land) to its owners..May 10: The Supreme Court extends the deadline for the mediation process till August 15 after the mediation panel submits its report on the developments of the process and requests for an extension..July 9: One of the original plaintiffs in the suit tells the Court that no progress has been made in the mediation ordered by the Court to settle the issue; seeks an early hearing in the case. Court allows the plaintiff to file an application in this regard..July 11: Supreme Court says that if the dispute cannot be resolved through mediation, it may pass orders for day-to-day hearing in the case. Mediation panel is directed to submit its report detailing the progress in the matter..July 18: Supreme Court directs the mediation panel to submit its report by July 31 and fixes the date for hearing of the case on and from August 2..August 2: Supreme Court notes that mediation panel has failed to arrive at a settlement and fixes the date to commence hearing the Ayodhya dispute from August 6. The hearing will be on a day-to-day basis..August 3: Former RSS Idealogue KN Govindacharya files a petition in Supreme Court seeking live streaming of the proceedings in Ayodhya case..August 6: Constitution Bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, and S Abdul Nazeer begin day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya dispute..August 9: Senior Counsel Rajeev Dhavan objects to Constitution Bench hearing the Ayodhya dispute case on non-miscellaneous days, says counsel will face difficulty preparing for the case..Constitution Bench rejects the request made by Dhavan, makes it clear that the hearing will be conducted on all five days of the week..August 30: Rajeev Dhavan files a plea seeking the initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings by the Supreme Court against a Chennai-based professor who allegedly threatened him against appearing for Muslim parties in the Ayodhya case..September 3: Supreme Court issues notice to Chennai-based professor N Shanmugham in contempt of court petition filed by Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan. Dhavan has alleged that the professor had threatened him for appearing for Muslim parties in the Ayodhya case..September 6: A petition seeking to quash the proceedings in the Ayodhya matter filed an organization called the Intercontinental Association of Lawyers, is taken up by a Division Bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi and the same is dismissed..September 12: Senior Counsel Rajeev Dhavan informs the Court of a purported threat to his law clerks from other law clerks on account of Dhavan representing Muslim parties in the matter. CJI Gogoi offers to provide security to Dhavan and his team, but the same is politely turned down by Dhavan stating that the offer was reassuring..September 16: Supreme Court seeks a response from its Registry on the plea regarding the live streaming of Ayodhya proceedings..September 18: Supreme Court says that there is no bar on parties attempting mediation on the side to settle the dispute..Following a request by the Court, all parties submit a timeframe for the conclusion of the arguments and the deadline for the completion of the case is set at October 18..September 19: Supreme Court closes contempt of court case against Tamil Nadu based professor N Shanmugham after he tenders an apology for his conduct..October 16: On the 40th day of the hearing, the Supreme Court says that the hearing in the case will conclude two days ahead of the schedule..Judgment is reserved by the Constitution Bench in the Ayodhya case.