Gold Medal Is Not a Legal Right, Rules Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has ruled that winning a gold medal is not a legal or statutory right of a student and cannot be claimed by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court clarified that decisions on academic honours must remain within the domain of academic authorities.

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy made these observations while dismissing a petition filed by a B.Com student who sought directions to award her a gold medal for the 2015–2018 academic session.

The petitioner, Vennila, was a student of Bharathidasan Government College for Women, Puducherry, affiliated with Pondicherry University. She had secured 2014 marks out of 2600 and was the highest scorer in her batch. However, the gold medal was awarded to another student who scored fewer marks.

Her claim was rejected because she had been absent for one examination in the first semester, which she later cleared as an arrear. As per the university’s academic circular dated June 4, 2018, gold medals are awarded only to students who pass all examinations in the first attempt itself.

The petitioner argued that her absence was due to dengue fever and should not be treated as a second attempt. She relied on a Delhi High Court judgment which held that absence on medical grounds does not amount to a second attempt for awarding a gold medal.

The University opposed the petition, stating that the eligibility rule was uniformly applied to all students and made no distinction between absence and failure. It argued that any deviation would undermine academic standards.

Upholding the University’s stand, the High Court held that the award of a gold medal is part of an academic scheme to recognise excellence and does not create any enforceable legal right. Where eligibility criteria are uniformly interpreted, courts should not interfere and must leave such decisions to academicians.

The Court declined to follow the Delhi High Court’s view, observing that individual circumstances like illness or absence cannot be judicially equated in competitive academic assessments. It also found no violation of equality.

However, considering the petitioner’s exceptional academic performance and the fact that she had scored significantly higher than the next candidate, the Court directed the college to issue her an academic merit certificate, especially since the institution has now become autonomous.