Several political parties in Tamil Nadu have come together to oppose the decision to lower cut-off marks for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category in recruitment examinations conducted by the State Bank of India (SBI). The move has sparked widespread debate across the state, with opposition leaders and regional parties arguing that relaxing standards for one category creates an uneven playing field and compromises the principle of merit-based selection.
The controversy centres on a recent notification or practice by the bank wherein the qualifying cut-off marks for EWS candidates were set lower than those for the general and other reserved categories. Critics say this effectively dilutes the competitiveness of the exam and undermines the efforts of candidates who clear higher benchmarks without any relaxation.
Tamil Nadu has long been at the forefront of resistance to reservations that exceed the 50% cap mandated by a landmark Supreme Court judgment in the Indra Sawhney case of 1992. The EWS quota, introduced through a constitutional amendment in 2019, provides 10% reservation to economically weaker sections among forward castes — a provision that has faced legal challenges and political opposition in several states. Tamil Nadu's stance has consistently emphasised that any relaxation in cut-offs or standards must not come at the cost of fairness and transparency in competitive examinations.
Leaders from the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), and other regional outfits have issued statements condemning the lower cut-off, terming it an attempt to bypass merit through administrative convenience. They argue that if economic deprivation is the criterion, the solution should lie in strengthening school education and preparatory support rather than lowering examination benchmarks.
The SBI recruitment process is one of the most highly contested in the country, with lakhs of applicants competing for a limited number of positions. Any perceived relaxation in eligibility thresholds tends to draw sharp reactions from states that prioritise equitable and merit-driven selection mechanisms.
Government sources indicate that the bank's decision was made to ensure adequate filling of vacancies, but critics dismiss this justification as insufficient. The issue is expected to remain a topic of political discussion in the state assembly and could also find its way into legal proceedings if further relaxations are announced in future recruitment cycles.
