Kashmir University Gold Medal Dispute Dismissed by High Court Over Nine-Year Delay | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by a former Kashmir University student seeking a gold medal allegedly awarded to him for securing first position in his postgraduate medical course, holding that the claim was barred by “delay and laches” and marred by inconsistent pleadings.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Sanjay Parihar passed the order on June 3, 2026 in an appeal filed by Ibrar Bashir Shirazi against University of Kashmir.

The appellant was represented by advocate Sheikh Mohammad Fasal, while senior advocate SF Qadri, assisted by advocate Numan Zargar, appeared for the University.

Shirazi had earlier filed a writ petition seeking directions to the University to provide him the gold medal which, according to him, had been awarded in recognition of his merit position in the MD course.

According to the petitioner, Chapter XI of the Kashmir University Statutes provides for annual conferment of gold medals at convocation ceremonies upon candidates securing first position in order of merit.

He claimed that during a convocation ceremony in 2014, presided over by the then Governor of the erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir State in his capacity as Chancellor of the University, he was awarded both a certificate of merit and a gold medal. However, he alleged that the medal was later taken back by University authorities on the ground that there was a shortage of medals for meritorious students, with an assurance that it would be returned after fresh medals were procured.

The appellant contended that despite repeated representations, the medal was never restored, forcing him to approach the High Court in 2023.

The University opposed the plea, arguing that under the relevant statutes no gold medal was prescribed at the postgraduate level in the appellant’s discipline. It maintained that convocation ceremonies in such cases were limited to conferment of degree certificates upon PhD, MPhil and MD/MS students.

The University further submitted that the petition suffered from gross delay, as the alleged cause of action arose in 2014 while the writ petition was filed only in 2023. It also denied ever handing over any gold medal to the appellant.

A Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on September 18, 2025 on the ground of delay and laches, observing that the appellant had only been invited to receive a certificate of merit, which had already been granted.

Challenging that decision before the Division Bench, the appellant argued that the delay was attributable to the University itself, which had allegedly failed to hold convocation ceremonies between 2014 and 2023. He also relied on a University notification dated October 23, 2023, claiming it mandated presentation of gold medals to all qualifying MD/MS candidates.

However, the Division Bench found that the appellant had taken contradictory stands at different stages of the litigation.

The Court noted that in the original writ petition the appellant claimed that the medal had been awarded in 2014 and subsequently retrieved by the University. In the appeal, however, he shifted his stand by asserting that the first relevant convocation was held in 2013 and that both the certificate and medal were returned because of ambiguity regarding whether the award was for overall merit or specialty merit.

The Bench further observed that even in the rejoinder affidavit, the appellant projected yet another version of events.

“A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant has taken vacillating and inconsistent stands at three separate stages of the litigation,” the Court observed.

The Bench held that the shifting narratives indicated that the appellant himself was uncertain about the facts of his case.

“The cause of action allegedly arose in the year 2014, yet the writ petition was filed only after a lapse of nine years, in 2023,” the Court noted.

Rejecting the appellant’s explanation that the delay was caused by administrative inertia on the part of the University, the Court held that he could not “gloss over an inordinate delay of nine years in approaching the court.”

The Division Bench relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in HMT Ltd. v. Smt. Rukmini and others (2024 INSC 728), where relief was declined on grounds of delay and inconsistent stands taken by litigants.

Quoting the Supreme Court, the Bench observed that stale claims should not be entertained where parties have “slept over the matter for decades together.”

Holding that the appellant’s plea lacked the merit necessary for judicial intervention, the Court dismissed the appeal as “misconceived.”