New Delhi: Horoscope is an admissible piece
of evidence to prove a person`s date of birth though it has
low reliability, the Supreme Court has held.
A bench of justices Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R Dave
passing the judgement, however, said the burden of proving the
authenticity of such horoscope would lie "heavily" on the
person relying on it.
"We reiterate the proposition of law laid down by this
court in the earlier decisions that horoscope is a very weak
piece of material to prove age of a person and that heavy onus
lies on a person who wants to press it into service to prove
its authenticity," the bench said.
The court passed the judgement on a petition filed by
Registrar General of the Madras High Court against M Manickam,
a lower court judge, who has been litigating since 1993 for
change in his date of birth from November 24, 1950 to March
He had made his first application before the Registrar
General in November 1993 contending that due to the wrong
entry of his date of birth in the service records, he would
retire from his service 3 years, 8 months and 5 days before
his actual date of superannuation.
The apex court said that since horoscope is a primary
document on which reliance is placed, "therefore, the same is
required to be looked into very carefully and minutely so as
to ascertain the genuineness of the claim."
The bench rejected Manickam`s plea for change in his date
of birth noting that even though Manickam claimed the
horoscopes were made by his father at the time of their birth
between 1939 and `53, but an address and its pin code printed
on the pad showed the note pad was manufactured only after
1972 when the system of pin code was introduced.
"We are of a firm opinion that respondent (Manickam) has
failed to discharge his onus in proving the authenticity of
the horoscope on which reliance is placed," it said.