With examinations concluded, the appeal was disposed without merits, leaving all issues open before the Single Judge.

The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University and its Controller of Examinations filed a writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the interim order dated 28 April 2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.M.P.(MD) No.9764 of 2026 in W.P.(MD) No.13009 of 2026.

The interim order permitted respondents 1 to 20, who were students, to write their law examinations at the 21st respondent college, Mugil College of Law, Athencode, Kanyakumari District.

A Coordinate Division Bench stayed the interim order on 6 May 2026. The students thereafter approached the Supreme Court, which did not interfere with the stay but granted liberty to have the issue adjudicated in the writ appeal.

By the time the appeal was heard, the examination period had ended and the students stated that they had been unable to write the examinations owing to the stay order.

The appeal was governed procedurally by Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, under which an intra-court appeal lies against an order of a learned Single Judge.

The Court applied the principle that an appellate court need not decide an issue that has become practically infructuous or redundant, particularly where deciding it would prejudice the parties’ substantive rights or foreclose their right of intra-court appeal in the pending writ proceedings.

The Court also applied the principle that legal issues not necessary for disposing of the immediate appellate controversy should be left open for determination by the learned Single Judge in the pending writ petitions.

The challenged interim order concerned permission to write examinations during a specified examination period. Since that period had already expired, the immediate relief granted by the Single Judge could no longer operate prospectively.

The students’ inability to write the examinations because of the stay and the University’s contention that the permission raised substantive legal questions demonstrated that the dispute involved matters better considered in the pending writ petitions.

The Division Bench therefore declined to determine the legality of the college’s admissions, the requirement of Bar Council sanction, or the necessity of counselling.

It also considered that deciding those questions in the appeal could affect the parties’ right to pursue an intra-court appeal after adjudication by the learned Single Judge.

All points of law, including the college’s authority to admit the students, the requirement of Bar Council sanction, and the necessity of counselling, were expressly left open for consideration by the learned Single Judge in the pending writ petitions.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.