Documents for a Caste Certificate: SC/ST/OBC

• Application form: State-specific; downloadable from your state e-District portal
• Father's caste certificate: Primary lineage proof; if your father is deceased, your grandfather's
• Self and family identity proof: Aadhaar + Voter ID + ration card
• Residence proof: Aadhaar / electricity bill / voter ID / property tax receipt
• Birth certificate: For DOB and parent identification
• Affidavit: Self-declaration of caste and lineage, on stamp paper, notarised (denomination fixed by your state)
• Two passport-size photos: White background, recent

• Migration certificate: For families that moved from one state to another (caste certificate of the state of origin)
• School TC + Class 10 marksheet: Where caste is recorded, as supporting proof
• Mother's caste certificate: For cross-verification, or where the claim runs through the mother
• Adoption deed: For adopted children claiming the biological parent's caste (state-dependent)
• Tribal welfare officer's certificate: For ST in scheduled areas

• SC certificate: Only for persons listed against your state in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 (issued under Article 341).
• ST certificate: Only for persons listed against your state in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950 (Article 342). Some tribes are scheduled in some states only.
• OBC certificate has two types: Central (Non-Creamy-Layer, against the Central List) and State (state OBC list, with separate criteria fixed by the state). The Central creamy-layer limit is an income test of Rs. 8 lakh a year, not an asset test. It is set out in full below.
• Validity: SC/ST: lifetime. OBC-NCL: requires periodic recertification (central validity per DoPT OMs; state NCL per state rules).
• Inter-state migration: An SC/ST certificate of one state is not automatically valid in another; apply fresh at the new state with a migration certificate.
• Field verification: Revenue officials (Patwari / Lekhpal / Village Officer) may conduct field verification, especially for ST claims in scheduled areas.

In most states the application goes to the Tehsildar or the SDM office, or online through your state e-District portal (e.g. e-District UP, MeeSeva AP, e-Sevai TN). Confirm the officer against your own state's notified list before you file, for the reason set out in the next section.

→ Official source: india.gov.in services directory

Until 2024 the Centre itself prescribed which officers could issue SC, ST and OBC certificates. That has changed.

DoPT Office Memorandum No. 36039/1/2019-Estt.(Res.-II) dated 15 March 2024, addressed to the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories, records that “the responsibility for issue and verification of caste/community certificate lies with the concerned State Government/UT Administration”. It then decides “to delegate the powers to the State Governments/UT Administrations to decide the authorities competent to issue the Caste/Tribe/Community certificates in respect of SC/ST/OBC and Income and Asset Certificates in respect of EWS candidates”.

Two practical consequences follow.

First, the same memorandum directs that States and Union Territories “shall upload on their website the details of the authorities competent to issue such Caste/Tribe/Community/Income & Asset certificate”. Your state revenue or social welfare portal is now the authoritative list. A central circular is not.

Second, the memorandum expressly modifies the older central instructions that used to name the officers, namely OM No. 36012/6/88-Estt (SCT) dated 24 April 1990 and letter No. 36012/22/93-Estt (SCT) dated 15 November 1993. A checklist that still quotes only those instructions is out of date.

The memorandum explains why it was issued. In its own words, “in some States, such Certificates have not been issued by the authorities prescribed by this Department, leading to avoidable hardship for the candidates”. A certificate signed by an officer your state has not notified can be refused later even when every fact in it is true. Confirm the designation before you apply, not after.

The scrutiny machinery that states run comes from the Supreme Court's directions in Kum. Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241. The 15 March 2024 memorandum asks States to streamline their procedure “keeping in view the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court” in that very case, so the scheme still governs.

The Court laid down a numbered procedure. Four parts of it matter to an applicant.

Where the application goes. The Court directed that the application for a social status certificate be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer, Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner, and that the certificate issue from that officer “rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level”.

The Scrutiny Committee. Verification is done by a committee of three officers, not by a single dealing hand. The Court specified an Additional or Joint Secretary or an officer higher in rank than the Director of the department concerned, the Director of Social Welfare, Tribal Welfare or Backward Class Welfare as the case may be, and a third officer with close knowledge of issuing social status certificates.

The Vigilance Cell. A separate investigating wing sits under the committee. It is headed by a Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police with Police Inspectors under him. It verifies a claim by visiting the applicant's residence, examining school records and birth records, and testing the anthropological and ethnological traits the claim rests on. Field verification is therefore not an irregularity or a sign of suspicion. It is the process working as designed.

Your right to be heard. Where the cell reports against the claim, the committee must issue a show-cause notice carrying the substance of that report, and must give the candidate, parent or guardian a reasonable opportunity to lead evidence before it decides.

That last point is the one applicants most often lose without knowing it. If a scrutiny committee cancelled a certificate without a notice and without a hearing, the defect is in the process itself, and it is worth stating in the appeal alongside the merits.

The consequences in Madhuri Patil do not stop at the certificate.

Where the committee finds the claim false, it cancels the certificate and confiscates it. The Court directed that the authority concerned then cancel the admission or the appointment obtained on that certificate, and debar the candidate from continuing the course or holding the office.

That is the reason an affidavit of lineage should be drafted with care rather than copied from a sample. A statement made to obtain a certificate is a statement made to a public authority, and it is read later against the school records and the birth records the vigilance cell collects.

For a Central OBC Non-Creamy-Layer certificate the test is income. It is not a test of property.

The limit is gross annual income of Rs. 8 lakh. It was set by DoPT Office Memorandum No. 36033/1/2013-Estt. (Res.) dated 13 September 2017, which raised the figure from Rs. 6 lakh and has effect from 1 September 2017. The memorandum operates by substituting the figure under Category VI of the Schedule to the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 8 September 1993, which is where the creamy-layer test itself sits. Earlier steps in the same series were Rs. 2.5 lakh in 2004, Rs. 4.5 lakh in 2008 and Rs. 6 lakh in 2013.

Two cautions follow.

The Rs. 8 lakh figure also appears in the separate criteria for Economically Weaker Sections, and the two tests are not the same. The EWS criteria add asset ceilings on agricultural land, flats and plots, and count income from all sources. Carrying an EWS rule onto an OBC form, or the reverse, is a common and avoidable rejection.

A State OBC list and a State non-creamy-layer limit are fixed by the State, and can differ from the Central figure. Read the notice you are applying under.

For the Central list and the certificate itself, see the OBC Non-Creamy-Layer certificate guide.

If your caste claim is rejected, file an RTI asking for the specific reason under §4(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005, and appeal to the designated appellate authority (usually the SDM or District Magistrate, as your state's rules provide). Caste claims are scrutinised on the principles laid down in Kum. Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241.

→ Use the AI RTI Drafter to draft a §6(1) application asking for the rejection reason.

The presumption under the Supreme Court's decision in Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika v. State of Gujarat (2012) 2 SCC 400, decided on 18 January 2012, is that the child takes the father's caste. It is a rebuttable presumption, examined on the facts of the case. In matrilineal communities (e.g. Khasi, Garo), maternal lineage prevails.

The Court put it this way. “In an inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal there may be a presumption that the child has the caste of the father. This presumption may be stronger in the case where in the inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal the husband belongs to a forward caste. But by no means the presumption is conclusive or irrebuttable.”

What rebuts it is evidence about how the child actually lived. The Court looked for proof that the child was brought up by the mother who belonged to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, and had suffered “the deprivations, indignities, humilities and handicaps like any other member of the community” to which the mother belonged. A bare assertion of the mother's caste will not do. School records, residence and the family's actual circumstances carry the claim.

SC/ST: lifetime. OBC-NCL: requires periodic recertification, central validity per DoPT OMs, state validity per state rules.

Yes. Under Articles 341/342 the SC/ST lists are state-specific, so a certificate of one state is not valid in another. Apply at the new state with a migration certificate.

Apply for a duplicate of your father's certificate, or submit your grandfather's certificate plus a sworn affidavit of lineage.

Your State or Union Territory decides. DoPT Office Memorandum dated 15 March 2024 delegated that choice to State Governments and UT Administrations, and directs them to publish the list of competent authorities on their website. Check that list before applying, because a certificate from an officer your state has not notified can be refused later.

Yes. Madhuri Patil places a Vigilance Cell under the Scrutiny Committee, headed by a Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police. It verifies claims by home visits and by examining school and birth records. A visit is part of the procedure, not an accusation.

It should not. Madhuri Patil requires a show-cause notice carrying the substance of the vigilance report, and a reasonable opportunity for the candidate, parent or guardian to lead evidence, before the committee decides. If neither happened, say so in the appeal.

Madhuri Patil directs that the certificate be cancelled and confiscated, that the admission or appointment obtained on it be cancelled, and that the candidate be debarred. A scrutiny notice is therefore urgent, and should not be left unanswered.

No, and the shared figure causes constant confusion. The OBC creamy-layer test is an income test under Category VI of the Schedule to the 1993 memorandum, raised to Rs. 8 lakh with effect from 1 September 2017. The EWS criteria are separate and add asset ceilings on land, flats and plots. Apply the test that belongs to the certificate you are seeking.

• State-by-state: Caste certificate across all states and UTs
• If rejected, file RTI: Full RTI guide for caste-certificate delay
• Citizen RTI playbook: 100+ citizen scenarios
• All documents checklists: Documents checklist hub
• The RTI Playbook

• Constitution of India, Articles 341 (Scheduled Castes) and 342 (Scheduled Tribes)
• Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950; Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950
• DoPT Office Memorandum No. 36033/1/2013-Estt. (Res.) dated 13 September 2017, raising the OBC creamy-layer income limit to Rs. 8 lakh with effect from 1 September 2017: documents.doptcirculars.nic.in
• DoPT Office Memorandum No. 36039/1/2019-Estt.(Res.-II) dated 15 March 2024, delegating the choice of competent authority to States and Union Territories: doptcirculars.nic.in
• Kum. Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241, decided 2 September 1994, full text: Indian Kanoon
• Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 2 SCC 400, decided 18 January 2012, full text: Indian Kanoon
• Right to Information Act 2005, §§4(1)(d), 6, 7, 19
• Official portal: india.gov.in services directory (linked above)

Last reviewed: 11 September 2026.