A three year old boy crushed to death by a ATata Qualis driven by a twelve year old. However unlikely you find the possibility of a twelve year old driving a car this is true. The boy was said to be learning to drive with the help of the family driver. The incident took place in Paschim Vihar area of West Delhi. The victim was with his aunt who was also badly injured in the accident. Accidents such as these put a question mark on several aspects ranging from legal to social. Since January, over 2400 minors have been booked for various offences under the Motor Vehicles Act in Delhi alone. There is a rule in India which forbids anyone under the age of 18 years to drive. Also anyone cannot drive without a driving license and acquiring a license involves a legal procedure where proof of age is required. It is astonishing to find how many underage drivers we can find in India despite the fact that licensing system is in place. There is a steady and thriving underground business in illegal and fake licenses. By paying some amount of money anyone can acquire a fake birth certificate and a driving license. The worst part is that the parents also become accomplice in the whole process. They do not only arrange for such fake licenses but also provide the underage kids with vehicles. For them it is just a matter of spending some more money but others have to pay for it with their life. Accidents can be a result of an adult's fault too. But this does not justify underage driving. It is important to realize that juvenile driving is not safe as the physical as well as the mental faculties of children and teenagers are not fit to bear the strain of driving. Accidents take place everyday in all the corners of the world. But accidents perpetrated due to the age of drivers are preventable. It is imperative to check the issue of fake driving licenses and fake birth certificates. And for the parents it is important to understand that their reluctance to put a firm hold on their children can take someone's life. Preventable Mishaps he Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court surprised the country with his remarks on a case. Justice S N Srivastava gave the verdict that: “It is the duty of every Tcitizen of India under Article 51-A of the Constitution of India, irrespective of caste, creed or religion, to follow dharma as propounded by the Bhagvad Gita”. He was delivering the verdict on a writ petition filed by Shyamlal Ranjan Mukherjee, a priest of Gopal Thakur Mandir in Varanasi. India's political stability is already dwindling since the advent of the coalition era where no political party gets a clear cut majority. In such a scenario irresponsible remarks on the part of the judiciary are uncalled for. The remarks of the Chief Justice can be considered as having a religious bent. Gravity of the verdict is only multiplied when one considers the misinterpretation of the Constitution. Article 51(A) of the Constitution obligates each and every citizen to uphold the honour of the country and respect its ideologies. The Gita does not find a place anywhere in the article. It is the personal interpretation of the judge in question that Gita is a part of the country's ideals and every citizen should therefore follow it. Everyone is aware of the fact that we live in a country where people follow different religions. Though Gita is regarded as a book full of worldly wisdoms by many people the fact remains that it is a religious book and to remark that people belonging to all religions should follow it is highly presumptive. In India judiciary is considered as the guardian of the Constitution. Such statements in a secular country from a judicial authority can cause a national outrage. Everyone Indian citizen has a right to follow the ideologies of whichever religion they deem fit. Such blanket statements can lead to communal troubles which are best avoided The silence that has followed the comment is also quite surprising. Hardly anyone has come forward to discuss the merits of this verdict. Barring a few exceptions the usually noisy media too have refrained from commenting. But it is a question worth debate whether anyone can make such a statement without being held accountable for its implications?