How a horoscope notebook and PIN Code exposed a Tamil Nadu judge’s false claim at Supreme Court

For those who believe in astrology, a horoscope is a guide to the future. But sometimes, the same horoscope can expose a lie—and derail someone’s ambition to remain in service for a few more years. This is one such case.

In November 1988, M. Manickam joined the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Judicial Services as Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate. In October 1993, he submitted a representation to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanniyakumari, seeking to change his date of birth. Manickam said while his SSLC record demonstrated his date of birth as March 19, 1947, he was actually born on November 24, 1950. If his contention is accepted, his service period would be extended by nearly four years.

Read more on Tamil Nadu InFocus

Over the course of time, he had obtained favourable orders from different courts to change his date of birth. The Madras High Court had also ruled in his favour. However, the Registrar General of the Madras High Court moved the Supreme Court challenging the judicial decision.

The first point of challenge was that Manickam had submitted his representation to change the date of birth after completing five years of service. The Registrar General argued this was not in consonance with the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules. It mandated that any such change can be made only within five years of a person joining service.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Registrar General. But, instead of deciding the appeal only on this ground, a bench of Justices Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R. Dave proceeded to decide on the other issues additionally which were placed before it.

The judges noted that Manickam’s SSLC certificate originally mentioned his date of birth as March 19, 1947. Thereafter it was changed to November 24, 1950, “by someone by putting his initials, but the same is also without any date and no seal also appears to have been appended thereto in support of such change.” So, the court refused to accept the changed entry in the certificate.

‘Vague’ medical certificate

Thereafter, the apex court took up another document given by Manickam – the deposition of a doctor and a medical certificate issued by him to support the claim for changing the date of birth. However, the judges observed that the ‘Age Proof Certificate’ issued by the doctor, merely read: “According to my physical examination and personal of his appearance of the individual, he appears to be about 48 years (Forty Eight years) according to his own statement.”

“In our considered opinion, the said medical certificate is highly vague and unreliable. Whether or not any radiological examination was done and if so, of what nature, and also whether any ossification test was done or not is not reflected from the stated report,” the judges said while rejecting the medical certificate.

The judges remarked there must be strong, cogent and reliable evidence in backing of the contention that the date of birth entered in the service records or in the SSLC certificate was wrongly entered by a mistake.

Same ink for horoscopes written over 14 years

Then the two judges went on to examine the evidentiary value of a horoscope. It manickam had submitted in support of his claim. The judges very minutely looked at the horoscope and were startled by what emerged.

“Having gone through the same, we find that although it is stated to be a notebook containing the horoscopes of all the sons and daughters of the father of Respondent No. 1 [Manickam] made at different points of time, but a bare perusal of the document would indicate that all the horoscopes are produced at one point of time by the same person at one go and not on different dates as sought to be claimed. The book allegedly containing horoscopes of all persons was shown to be maintained from 1939 to 1953. For all the horoscopes written between a period of 14 years the same ink was used by the same writer,” the judges pointed out.

That was not all. The notebook containing the horoscope contained a PIN Code and that sealed the case.

No PIN Code system until 1972

The judges found the first horoscope in Manickam’s family was of a child born in 1939. This was written in that year in a note book distributed and published from “Trichy-2”. But the big catch was this: Before Independence there was no postal zone or PIN Code.

“As per materials available the Indian Postal Service which was constituted after Independence has introduced a PIN code system ‘the Postal Index Number Code System’ in India on 15.08.1972….. Since this system came in 1972 the note book has to be of a period after 1972 and, therefore, the contention that immediately on birth of a member in the family, the date of birth was entered in the note book has been falsified. Therefore, it reinforces the findings of this Court that the Respondent No. 1 has incorrectly stated the year of preparation of horoscope. It could be deduced from the materials on record that somewhere around 1993 this document was got prepared,” the judges concluded.

“When we look into the dispute and the matter from any angle, we find that the judgment and the decree passed by the Munsif Court which is affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. We hereby set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court and hold that respondent No. 1 has failed to prove that any change of date of birth is urged in the present case,” the Supreme Court held in August 2011.