Guardian Convicted For Allowing Minor To Drive; Srinagar Court Issues Strong Warning To Parents
Pranav B Prem
The Court of the Special Mobile Magistrate (Traffic), Srinagar has convicted the guardian of a minor who was found driving a vehicle in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, holding that it is the first and foremost duty of parents not to provide vehicles to their minor children until they attain majority. The order strongly condemns the rising trend of underage driving, observing that such conduct not only violates traffic laws but directly contributes to the alarming number of road fatalities in the country.
The proceedings arose from a challan filed against Mushtaq Ahmad Buch, guardian of a juvenile rider, after the minor was caught operating a motor vehicle. The challan invoked Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which establishes statutory liability on a guardian or owner of a vehicle when the violator is a juvenile. The Court recorded that, in terms of the provision, a presumption operates that the juvenile was permitted to use the vehicle by the guardian. The judgment states that “the Court shall presume that the use of the motor vehicle by the juvenile was with the consent of the guardian or the owner of the vehicle”.
When produced before the Court, the accused guardian voluntarily pleaded guilty. After ensuring that the plea was free from coercion and that the accused did not wish to contest the trial, the Magistrate proceeded to convict him. The Court proposed the statutory sentence of three years’ simple imprisonment, ₹25,000 fine, and cancellation of the vehicle’s registration for twelve months, as required under Section 199A.
However, considering that the offence did not involve moral turpitude, that the accused had no previous criminal antecedents, and that reformative justice would suffice, the Court extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. The guardian was directed to execute a bond of ₹2,00,000 for keeping peace and good behaviour for two years, with the warning that any breach during the probation period would revive the original sentence and result in forfeiture of the bond amount.
Alongside the conviction, the Magistrate delivered a strong public-oriented message on road safety. Referring to the devastating human cost of traffic violations, the judgment notes that approximately 8,10,913 lives were lost to road accidents in the five-year period from 2020 to 2024, an issue described as “alarming” and demanding urgent societal behavioural change.
The Court stressed that traffic rules “are not formalities but basic habits that can save lives,” adding that responsibility to follow them “should come from within us, not only when a police officer is around.” Addressing the menace of underage driving, the Magistrate observed that minors are often seen operating two-wheelers and four-wheelers near schools and crowded public areas, creating hazards for motorists and pedestrians. The Court sternly stated that “Parents/guardians or owners of vehicles are responsible for providing vehicles to their minor children. Allowing minors to drive produces violators and victims, not responsible citizens.”.
The Court also highlighted the critical role of educational institutions, urging schools to routinely sensitise students and guardians about the legal and moral implications of juvenile driving. To institutionalise awareness, the Court directed that a copy of the judgment be communicated to the Commissioner Secretary, School Education, J&K, for onward circulation across all government and private schools. The Magistrate requested the department to consider framing a “No Vehicle Policy for Minors in educational institutions,” noting that such a measure would contribute meaningfully to public safety. Further, the Court directed the Inspector General of Police (Traffic), J&K to conduct special drives against underage driving.
Ultimately, the conviction of the guardian stands, though the sentence remains suspended subject to compliance with probation conditions, and the judgment simultaneously aims to use the incident as a platform for broader societal awareness and preventive policy measures.
Cause Title: Mushtaq Ahmad Buch v. UT of Jammu & Kashmir
Coram: Shri. Shabir Ahmad Malik
