It's been nearly two years when the Supreme Court had on November 9, 2019 passed its landmark verdict on the Ayodhya dispute. The SC of India ordered the disputed land (2.77 acres) to be handed over to a trust (to be created by Government of India) to build the Ram Janmabhoomi (revered as the birthplace of Hindu deity, Ram) temple.
Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on Saturday recalling the verdict day reminded when he had said that not a mosquito will be killed on that day, everything will be peaceful.
"People used to say that when Ayodhya verdict will be pronounced, something will happen. On November 9, 2019- the day of Ram Janmbhoomi case verdict, nothing happened in the state," the CM said.
Security had been beefed at various places in Uttar Pradesh as the long lying verdict was to roll out. The issue had led to violent clashes between Hindus and Muslims, however the matter was resolved after the verdict and also no violence was reported then in any part of the country.
It was a crucial year for India as the impending verdict was passed after years and notably during Bharatiya Janata Party led government in the state. The issue was on the party's agenda when Narendra Modi took charge as Prime Minister of India.
What was the row actually about?
Many Hindus believe the Babri Masjid was actually constructed on the ruins of a Hindu temple that was demolished by Muslim invaders in the 16th Century.
Muslims say they offered prayers at the mosque until December 1949 when some Hindus placed an idol of Ram in the mosque and began to worship the idols.
The two religious groups have gone to court many times over who should control the site.
Since then, there have been calls to build a temple on the spot where the mosque once stood.
Hinduism is India's majority religion and is thought to be more than 4,000 years old. India's first Islamic dynasty was established in the early 13th Century.
What did the Supreme Court say on the day of the verdict?
In the unanimous verdict, the court said that a report by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) provided evidence that the remains of a building "that was not Islamic" was beneath the structure of the demolished Babri mosque.
The court said that, given all the evidence presented, it had determined that the disputed land should be given to Hindus for a temple to Lord Ram, while Muslims would be given land elsewhere to construct a mosque.
It then directed the federal government to set up a trust to manage and oversee the construction of the temple.
However, the court added that the demolition of the Babri mosque was against the rule of law.