TMC MP Mahua Moitra on Tuesday, 21 July 2026, publicly questioned the Rapid Action Force (RAF) over its personnel operating without visible name tags while handling protesters, after an RAF Assistant Commandant reportedly justified the practice by saying the tags could fall off in crowds.

Context

Moitra's post on X directly quoted a statement attributed to RAF Assistant Commandant Sonia, who reportedly told questioners that name tags are kept in pockets — not worn — because they risk falling into crowds during deployments. Moitra responded with a sharp Hindi rebuke: 'Sharm bhi pocket mein hai kya?' — loosely translated as 'Is your sense of shame also tucked in your pocket?' — directing the question at the officer.

The Rapid Action Force is a specialised riot-control and crowd-management wing of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), raised in 1992 and routinely deployed for internal security and law-and-order duties across India. Its personnel are among the most frequently seen central paramilitary forces at protest sites and communally sensitive areas.

Policy Backdrop

The issue of visible identification for police personnel during law-and-order duties is not new to Indian governance debates. The Supreme Court, in its landmark Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) judgment, directed a series of police reforms, including measures aimed at improving accountability of personnel during public-order operations.

Wearing visible name tags or service numbers is widely considered a baseline accountability norm in democratic policing frameworks. The absence of identification makes it significantly harder for citizens, oversight bodies, or courts to attribute specific actions — including alleged use of excessive force — to individual officers.

Stakeholders and Impact

Civil rights groups and legal observers have long flagged the practice of central paramilitary personnel operating without visible identification as a structural accountability gap. For protesters on the receiving end of crowd-control measures, the inability to identify individual officers can effectively foreclose any avenue for grievance redressal.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), which oversees both the CRPF and its subsidiary units including the RAF, has not issued any public clarification on identification protocols in response to such concerns. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has in the past taken cognisance of complaints involving unidentified police personnel during protests.

What's Next

Moitra's post is likely to amplify calls for the MHA to issue explicit, enforceable guidelines requiring RAF and CRPF personnel to display identification at all times during deployments. Parliamentary sessions remain a key forum where such questions — on CRPF identification norms and use-of-force protocols — can be formally pressed.

Any response from the NHRC, or a formal parliamentary question in the upcoming session, could push the issue from social-media debate into the domain of institutional accountability. The episode adds to a recurring pattern of scrutiny over central paramilitary conduct during public demonstrations in India.