In a significant judgment that clarifies the nature of academic honors in India, the Madras High Court has ruled that receiving a university gold medal is not a "legal right" that can be enforced through a court of law.

The Court held that academic awards like gold medals are governed strictly by the internal rules and circulars of the university. While these honors are meant to inspire and recognize excellence, they do not constitute a statutory entitlement.

The ruling came from a single-judge bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy while dealing with a writ petition filed by H. Vennila, a former student of Bharathidasan Government College for Women, Puducherry.

Vennila was a brilliant student in the B.Com (Corporate Secretaryship) course during the 2015–2018 academic cycle. Her academic record was stellar—she secured 2014 marks out of 2600, making her the highest scorer in her entire batch.

However, when the time came for the convocation, the gold medal was awarded to another student, Vijayalakshmi, who had scored 1923 marks. Even though Vennila had scored 109 marks more than the winner, she was disqualified from the honor.

The reason for this denial was a circular issued by Pondicherry University on June 4, 2018. The university rules stated that to be eligible for a gold medal, a student must clear all papers in their "first attempt."

Vennila had been absent for one exam during her first semester because she was suffering from dengue fever. She appeared for that specific paper in the subsequent semester and cleared it with high marks.

The university viewed this as a "second attempt," effectively disqualifying her from the medal despite her being the overall batch topper.

Vennila’s counsel argued that her absence was involuntary and due to a serious medical condition. She contended that:

Absence due to illness should not be equated with a "second attempt" because she never actually "attempted" the exam the first time.
She relied on a 2016 judgment by the Delhi High Court (Abhinav Pandey vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University), which had previously ruled that if a student is absent due to illness, it cannot be treated as an attempt for the purpose of awarding medals.

On the other hand, the university and the Puducherry government argued that the award is a matter of academic policy. They maintained that the "first attempt" rule is applied uniformly to all students, whether they fail or are simply absent. They argued that once a rule is set, the court should not interfere in academic matters.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy, after hearing both sides, made several key observations:

1. Academic Awards are not Statutory Rights The Court noted that while every citizen has a right to education, they do not have a "legal right" to be awarded a gold medal. These honors are "tokens of appreciation" created by universities to motivate students. Since there is no law stating a topper must get a medal regardless of university rules, the court cannot force the university to change its policy.

2. Disagreement with the Delhi High Court In a notable move, the Madras High Court expressly declined to follow the Delhi High Court’s view. Justice Chakravarthy reasoned that treating medical absence differently could actually create unfairness.

For instance, consider two students with the same illness:

Student A forces themselves to attend the exam despite the fever and scores low marks.
Student B stays home and takes the exam later when they are healthy, scoring very high marks.

The Court noted that if "absence" is excused but "low performance due to illness" is not, it might lead to a situation where the student who stayed home gets a medal over the one who struggled through the exam.

3. Autonomy of Academic Bodies The judge emphasized that the definition of "first attempt" should be left to the academic experts. Since the university applied the same rule to everyone without discrimination, the court found no reason to call the policy "arbitrary" or "illegal."

While the Court upheld the university's legal position, it did not ignore Vennila’s exceptional talent. The judge pointed out that even if Vennila were given "zero" for the paper she missed and cleared later, she would still be the batch topper by a margin of 9 marks.

Acknowledging that the gold medal had already been awarded to another student years ago, and that it would be unfair to strip her of it now, the Court provided a unique solution.

The Court directed the college (which is now an autonomous institution) to issue a special academic certificate to Vennila. This certificate must recognize her as a "gold medallist" on merit, in the same format as the one given to the other student.

This judgment reinforces the principle that courts will generally not interfere in the internal "merit-ranking" systems of educational institutions unless there is clear evidence of bias or violation of law. While the "first attempt" rule remains a hurdle for many, the court’s decision to grant a merit certificate ensures that Vennila’s hard work is formally recognized without disrupting the university’s administrative rules.

Case Title: H. Vennila vs. State and Others

Bench: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy

Order Date: January 21, 2026