Inconsistent, vacillating claims and inordinate delay justify dismissal of a writ petition for laches.

The appellant, a first-position holder in Doctor of Medicine (MD), filed a writ petition in 2023 seeking a mandamus to compel the University of Kashmir to provide him with a Gold Medal he claimed was awarded in 2014 but subsequently retrieved by officials due to a shortage.

The respondent University contested this, stating that under Statute X, Gold Medals are not provided for MD disciplines and denied that a medal was ever handed over.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on September 18, 2025, on grounds of "delay and laches," noting the nine-year gap between the cause of action (2014) and the filing (2023).

The appellant challenged this dismissal via the present intra-court appeal.

1. Whether the writ petition was barred by the doctrine of "delay and laches" given the nine-year gap and the appellant's inconsistent pleadings.

2. Whether the administrative inertia of the University in holding Convocations justifies the delay in seeking judicial redress.

The court primarily applied the doctrine of "delay and laches," which precludes discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution if a party fails to approach the court within a reasonable timeframe.

The court relied on the precedent HMT Ltd. v. Smt. Rukmini and others (2024 INSC 728), which establishes that a litigant's "blameworthy conduct"—such as changing stands to suit their advantage—coupled with inordinate delay, renders a claim unsustainable even if a legal right is alleged.

The court further cited Syed Maqbool Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh and State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, emphasizing that constitutional courts must be convinced that the delay is justified and explainable before exercising discretionary jurisdiction.

The Court observed that the appellant presented three conflicting narratives across the writ petition, the rejoinder, and the appeal regarding when the medal was awarded and why it was returned.

In the appeal, the appellant introduced a new case regarding a 2013 convocation and re-verification of merit that was never pleaded in the original petition.

The Court reasoned that these "vacillating and inconsistent stands" demonstrated that the appellant was unsure of the facts due to the passage of time.

The Court rejected the appellant's attempt to blame "administrative inertia" for the nine-year delay, holding that it was the appellant's responsibility to pursue remedies diligently.

Under the principles of the HMT Ltd. case, the Court found that the appellant’s innovative and shifting stands, combined with the "stale and forgotten" nature of the 2014 cause of action, disentitled him to discretionary relief.

The High Court upheld the Single Judge’s order, concluding that the plea lacked merit and was barred by gross delay and laches. The appeal was dismissed as misconceived.