The Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) has clarified that no notice was issued to Bharat Ratna awardee Prof C.N.R. Rao regarding a discrepancy in his name on electoral rolls. The clarification directly contradicts earlier reports that the eminent scientist had been summoned for a hearing.
GBA Chief Denies Notice to CNR Rao Over Electoral Roll Name Mismatch
GBA chief commissioner M. Maheshwar Rao said on Wednesday, 9 September that no notice was sent to Prof C.N.R. Rao in connection with the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. This statement came hours after reports by news agency IANS and several media outlets claimed the scientist had been issued a notice over a 'self-name mismatch' and asked to appear for a hearing in Malleshwaram.
The reports suggested Rao's name appeared as 'Prof CNR Rao' in the older electoral rolls but as 'Proff CNR Rao' in the current roll, with an additional 'f' in his professional title. However, the GBA chief's clarification puts these claims into question.
Rao's Office Responds to Hearing Reports
According to the original story, Rao's office told NDTV that it had not received any notice regarding the matter. This response from the scientist's team aligns with the GBA chief's statement, suggesting the earlier reports may have been inaccurate.
"No notice was issued to Prof C.N.R. Rao in connection with the ongoing special intensive revision of electoral rolls." — M. Maheshwar Rao, GBA chief commissioner
Our Take: Clarification Highlights Need for Accuracy in Reporting
To put it plainly, this situation shows how quickly unverified information can spread. The GBA chief's clear denial of issuing any notice to Prof Rao — a respected 92-year-old scientist — should remind media outlets to confirm facts before publishing stories that could cause unnecessary confusion or distress.
The discrepancy in the reports — whether the name was 'Prof' or 'Proff' — appears to have been blown out of proportion. In our view, the swift clarification from the GBA is welcome, but the damage of misleading headlines may already be done. Readers should note that no official action was taken against Rao, and the reports of a hearing summons were incorrect.
This incident also raises questions about how electoral roll revision processes are communicated to the public. When errors do occur in official records, they should be addressed calmly and accurately — not through alarming reports that create panic among citizens, especially senior figures in the community.
