Madras High Court Refuses To Direct Gold Medal Despite Student's Higher Marks, Cites Academic Autonomy

The Madras High Court recently observed that conferring a gold medal on students is an academic matter which should be left to the academicians. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that there was no legal right involved in getting a gold medal and it was only a competition between the students involved. The court thus took a different view than the one taken by the Delhi High Court. “Therefore, with utmost respect to the Honourable Delhi High Court, I am not inclined to follow the said proposition, that is laid down, especially considering the fact that these are academic matters which should be advised left to the academicians and that no legal right is involved and competition between students are involved,” the court said. The court was hearing a petition filed by a student Vennila who studied B.Com (Corporate Secretaryship) from Pondicherry University. The petitioner's grievance was that despite securing 2014 out of 2600, she was not awarded a gold medal whereas another student who got only 1923 out of 2600 was awarded the gold medal. The petitioner informed the court that the gold medal was rejected solely on the ground that she was absent for one examination and had cleared it in the ensuing semester as an arrear paper. She informed the court that she could not write the exam as she was afflicted with dengue fever but had cleared the exam in the first attempt itself. The petitioner also brought to court's attention an order of the Delhi High Court where on similar facts, the court had directed the university to award gold medal on the students. The University informed the court that grant of gold medal was not a statutory right, but by way of academic schemes that were framed by authorities. It also informed that on June 4,2018, the university had issued a circular wherein it clearly says that all the subjects should have been passed out in the first attempt itself. The university thus argued that whether the petitioner was absent or failed did not matter and the word “attempt” should be seen as first attempt. After going through the circular, the court noted that the question to be looked into was the meaning of the word “first attempt”. While the court took into account the view taken by the Delhi High Court, the court also noted that since the word “attempt” was not defined in the circular or in any of the relevant statutes, it could not be given a hard-and-fast meaning one way or the other. The court noted that there was no legal right for granting gold medal and the meaning of “first attempt” should be left to the academicians themselves especially when they are imparting a meaning uniformly for all the students. Another reason for differing from the view taken by the Delhi High Court, the court said, was tat there could be another student who might have also been afflicted with dengue fever but might have preferred to attempt the exam and scored lesser marks. The court thus noted that it was the individual decision of the candidates and it could not be said that any equality clause was violated. However, noting that the petitioner was a very meritorious student. Thus, considering the peculiar facts of the case, and the fact that the petitioner's college had become an autonomous institution, the court asked the college to give an academic certificate on merit, mentioning that the petitioner was also a gold medallist, topping the academic year, similar to one that was given to the other gold medallist students. Counsel for Petitioner: M/s C. Bhargavi Counsel for Respondents: Mr. R. Syed Musthafa, Spl.GP (Pondy) Case Title: H Vennila v. State and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 49 Case No: W.P.No.31106 of 2022Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Madras High Court Refuses To Direct Gold Medal Despite Student's Higher Marks, Cites Academic Autonomy

Upasana Sajeev

Tags