Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in No.1612/2013 dated 14.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station, Crime No.1863 of 2012 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC 2. P-5 M.K.B. Nagar Police Station, Crime No.1484 of 2013 341, 294(b), 392 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 27.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station in Crime No.1802 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Amidst several grounds raised, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is variation in the translated version of the grounds of detention. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority is not well founded. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above submission and perused the material documents available on record. 5. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the name of the detenu himself has been wrongly mentioned in para 4 of the vernacular version of the grounds of detention. In para 4 of the English version of the grounds of detention, it has been stated as “The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.Vinoth @ Parthiban is taking action to take him out on bail by filing bail application for P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station Crime No.1802/2013 before the appropriate Court.” whereas in the vernacular version, it has been translated as “TAMIL” When there is a variation in translation, opportunity of clear understanding and making effective representation on such understanding is lost and the detenu is deprived thereof. The defective translation amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, on this sole ground, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 6. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in No.1612/2013 dated 14.11.2013, is set aside. The defective translation amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, on this sole ground, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 6. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in No.1612/2013 dated 14.11.2013, is set aside. The detenu – Vinoth @ Parthiban, S/o. Venkatesan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.