Court does not decide matter which are only of academic interest. Similarly, in Central Bank of India Vs. Workmen AIR 1960 SC 12, it was held that it is not necessary for the Courts to decide hypothetical questions and that the Courts do not given speculative opinions on hypothetical questions – it would be contrary to principle, inconvenient and inexpedient that opinion should be given on such questions – if and when they arise, they must arise in concrete cases – it would be extremely unwise for Courts to attempt beforehand to exhaust all possible cases and facts which might occur to qualify, cut down and override the operation of particular words when the concrete case is not before it. Similarly, in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kartar Singh 1964 AIR SC 1135, it was held that "if the rule has to be struck down as imposing unreasonable or discriminatory standards, it could not be done merely on any a priori reasoning but only as a result of material placed before the Court by way of scientific analysis ....... this can be done only when the party invoking the protection of Article 14 makes averments with details to sustain such a plea and leads evidence to establish his allegations -- that where a party seeks to impeach the validity of a rule made by a competent authority on the ground that the rule offends Article 14, the burden is on him to plead and prove the infirmity is too well established to need elaboration." The Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. K. Jayaraman (1974) 2 SCC 738 held that to contend that a rule is invalid for violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, relevant facts showing how it was discriminatory ought to have been set out. Yet again in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (1983) 1 SCC 147, it was expressed that it is not open to a Court to answer academic or hypothetical questions, particularly so when serious constitutional issues are
