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

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

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 showed 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.

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, which 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 also 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.

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 pointed out 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 very 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 said report,” the judges said while rejecting the medical certificate.

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

Then the two judges went on to examine the evidentiary value of a horoscope, which Manickam had submitted in support of his claim.