Tripura Tipra Motha Party MLA Ranjit Debbarma has accused the state police security wing of alleged bias after repeated changes to his personal security officers (PSOs). He has decided to surrender his official security cover and return to his village, citing concerns over his safety.
The legislator raised the issue publicly in Agartala on October 23, 2026. He questioned why authorities had repeatedly changed his security personnel without adequate explanation. However, available reports indicate that he sought intervention from Chief Minister Manik Saha and the Director General of Police (DGP), rather than confirming a formal appeal to the Governor.
Ranjit Debbarma questions repeated security changes
Ranjit Debbarma said his security arrangements had undergone frequent changes during his approximately four-and-a-half years as an MLA. He alleged that the police security wing had removed personnel without prior consultation or clear communication.
The latest incident involved Personal Security Officer Sukesh Debbarma, whose services were reportedly withdrawn on October 10, shortly before Durga Puja. The MLA said the officer had performed his duties properly and questioned the reason for the decision.
According to reports, Ranjit Debbarma had approached the relevant authorities seeking clarification. He maintained that he had no personal complaint against his assigned security personnel.
Moreover, he argued that changes should follow a transparent process. He said he would have understood a replacement if officials had raised a specific complaint against the officer concerned.
The MLA also questioned why some legislators reportedly retained the same security personnel for years, while his own arrangements changed repeatedly.
Ranjit Debbarma alleges bias in police security
Ranjit Debbarma described the repeated reshuffling as unfair and called for greater transparency in the allocation of security personnel to elected representatives.
He claimed that some other Tipra Motha MLAs and members of the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC) had experienced similar changes. However, these claims require independent verification, and the reasons behind the personnel changes have not been established publicly.
The legislator questioned whether the security wing followed a consistent policy when assigning and replacing personal security officers. He also sought accountability from officials responsible for managing these arrangements.
Furthermore, Debbarma raised concerns about the possible impact of such decisions on elected representatives who regularly travel to remote areas for organisational work.
Security arrangements for public representatives can involve confidential assessments. Therefore, authorities may need to balance an individual’s request for clarification with operational requirements. The available reports do not establish whether the police acted with political bias.
Ranjit Debbarma decides to surrender security cover
Following the dispute, Ranjit Debbarma announced his decision to surrender his official security cover in protest. He said he would leave the MLA hostel in Agartala and return to his village.
The legislator explained that he intended to continue his organisational activities from there. His responsibilities require him to travel across the district and attend public programmes, making security arrangements an important concern.
He also appealed to people to stand by him as he moved ahead without his official security personnel.
However, surrendering a security detail does not resolve the questions he raised about how the police allocate protection. The administration has yet to publicly establish the reasons behind the repeated changes.
The development has drawn attention to the relationship between elected representatives and the police administration in Tripura.
Chief Minister Manik Saha promises to examine issue
Chief Minister Manik Saha responded to the controversy by saying he would speak to DGP G.S. Rao to understand why the MLA’s security personnel had been changed.
Saha indicated that Debbarma had not directly brought the matter to him before the controversy emerged, adding that he would look into the issue if the reported incident had occurred.
The response suggests that the matter could receive further scrutiny at the administrative level. However, no completed inquiry or final decision had been reported in the coverage available on October 27.
Debbarma had earlier written to the police security wing on October 13, with copies reportedly sent to the Chief Minister and the DGP. He alleged that his communications had not received a satisfactory response.
The police administration has not publicly established whether the changes resulted from routine personnel management, specific security assessments or another reason.
Ranjit Debbarma row raises accountability questions
The dispute has placed the management of legislators’ security under scrutiny. It also raises broader questions about communication between public representatives and the authorities responsible for protecting them.
Ranjit Debbarma wants officials to explain the repeated changes and ensure fair treatment in security arrangements. His allegations, however, should not be treated as proof of misconduct without supporting evidence or findings from an inquiry.
A clear explanation from the administration could help establish whether the changes followed established procedures. It could also address concerns about consistency and accountability in the deployment of personal security officers.
For now, the key development is the MLA’s decision to relinquish his official protection and the Chief Minister’s stated intention to discuss the matter with the DGP.
The next steps will depend on the administration’s review and any clarification it provides. Until then, the allegations of bias remain unverified.