ORDER : Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to detention order passed by the 2nd respondent against the detenu, dated 15.06.2022 in detention order in C.M.P. No. 59 of 2022 and set aside the same and produce the detenu Bijeesh, now detained in Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at liberty. Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to detention order passed by the 2nd respondent against the detenu, dated 15.06.2022 in detention order in C.M.P. No. 60 of 2022 and set aside the same and produce the detenu Nikhil @ Unnikannan, now detained in Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at liberty. Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to detention order passed by the 2nd respondent against the detenu, dated 15.06.2022 in detention order in C.M.P. No. 58/2022/Goonda/Salem city and set aside the same and produce the Sijohn @ Ottagam, age 39, son of Devasikutti now detained in Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at liberty. 1. This common order will now govern the captioned three Habeas Corpus Petitions [hereinafter ‘HCPs’ in plural and ‘HCP’ in singular for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 2. In this order, for the sake of convenience and clarity, H.C.P. No. 1984 of 2022 shall be referred to as I - HCP, H.C.P. No. 1986 of 2022 shall be referred to as II - HCP and H.C.P. No. 2018 of 2022 shall be referred to as III - HCP wherever necessary. 3. When the matter was taken up, Mr. R. Radha Pandian, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr. R. Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all the respondents in all the three HCPs are before us. 4. We were informed by learned counsel on both sides that the captioned three matters pertain to three co-accused in one case and that one case is the substratum i.e. ground case qua detention orders in all three HCPs. R. Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all the respondents in all the three HCPs are before us. 4. We were informed by learned counsel on both sides that the captioned three matters pertain to three co-accused in one case and that one case is the substratum i.e. ground case qua detention orders in all three HCPs. To be noted, detention order dated 15.06.2022 bearing reference C.M.P. No. 59/Goonda/Salem City/2022 which is subject matter of I HCP shall be referred to as “I impugned detention order” the detention order dated 15.06.2022 bearing reference C.M.P. No. 60/Goonda/Salem City/2022 which is subject matter of II HCP shall be referred to as “II impugned detention order” and the detention order dated 15.06.2022 bearing reference C.M.P. No. 58/Goonda/Salem City/2022 which is subject matter of III HCP shall be referred to as “III impugned detention order.” 5. We are also informed that all three impugned detention orders are identical. It was submitted by both sides that I - HCP i.e. H.C.P. No. 1984 of 2022 can be taken as the lead case and that can be heard out. It was also submitted that the outcome of I - HCP will govern the outcome of II and III HCPs. 6. Notwithstanding very many points urged/raised in the affidavit filed in support of captioned HCPs, learned counsel for petitioners in three HCPs projected two points and both points find favour with us. These two points, discussion on the same together with dispositive reasoning are set out infra. 7. The first point is, the detenus are from Kerala, they know to speak Tamil but they do not know to read and write Tamil. It was argued that the grounds of detention supplied to the detenus in the form of a booklet [hereinafter ‘grounds booklet’ for the sake of convenience and clarity] does not contain translation in Malayalam. It contains translation only in Tamil and the detenus do not know to read Tamil is learned counsel's say. 8. Responding to the above point, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor drew our attention to the statement of witness to confession and pointed out a portion of the same which reads as follows: In our view, the aforementioned extract does not stand testimony to the position that the detenus know to read Tamil. It does not even articulate the position that the detenus can speak good Tamil. It does not even articulate the position that the detenus can speak good Tamil. On the contrary, it only brings to light that the detenus gave confession in a mix of Malayalam and Tamil. We are also informed that literacy levels of the detenus are in the region of Grade VIII in school. Therefore, absent material to demonstrate that the detenus can read Tamil, the translation in Tamil does not serve the purpose qua effective representation against impugned detention orders. This means that there is infraction of constitutional safeguards ingrained in Clause (5) of Article 22. Therefore, the first point enures to the benefit of the petitioners. Be that as it may, on this point, learned Additional Public Prosecutor drew our attention to the confession statement of the detenu in I - HCP. The relevant portion of the confession statement of detenu in I HCP (recorded in Tamil) reads as follows: We are of the view that the aforementioned recording qua confession also does not really help the case of the respondents in the Prosecutor's endeavour to sustain the impugned detention orders. The reasons are two in number. One reason is, the confession, it only talks about the detenu knowing Tamil but does not talk about whether the detenu can read the language. The second point is in this very HCP in the case of this very detenu i.e. case of the detenu in I - HCP also witness to the confession in statement dated 08.05.2022 in Pages 46 and 47 of the grounds booklet says: The above statement of the witness to the confession buttresses the position that the detenu can at best speak a mix of Tamil and Malayalam. This means that there is no material to demonstrate that detenu can read Tamil. Therefore, the impugned detention orders and the grounds not being furnished in Tamil is certainly an infraction of the constitutional safeguard ingrained in Article 22(5). 9. The second point urged by the petitioner turns on incorrect translation. Adverting to the grounds booklet furnished to the detenus, learned counsel submitted that the remand order and extension of remand order contained in one order sheet made by the jurisdictional Magistrate has been incorrectly translated. A scanned reproduction of extension of remand order dated 23.05.2022 in English reads as follows: 10. Adverting to the grounds booklet furnished to the detenus, learned counsel submitted that the remand order and extension of remand order contained in one order sheet made by the jurisdictional Magistrate has been incorrectly translated. A scanned reproduction of extension of remand order dated 23.05.2022 in English reads as follows: 10. A bare reading of the English and Tamil translation of the orders of extension of remand make it clear that translation is incorrect. It is not just incorrect but it conveys a completely different meaning. To be noted, while the remand extension order in English says that accused was not produced before the Judicial Magistrate, the Tamil translation says that the accused was seen via a videoconferencing platform. This is clear infraction of the constitutional safeguard ingrained in Article 22(5) of Constitution of India, as it certainly impairs and hampers detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation qua the impugned detention order. 11. In the result, the detention orders dated 15.06.2022 bearing reference C.M.P. No. 59/Goonda/Salem City/2022 (H.C.P. No. 1984 of 2022), C.M.P. No. 60/Goonda/Salem city/2022 (H.C.P. No. 1986 of 2022) and C.M.P. No. 58/Goonda/Salem city/2022 (H.C.P. No. 2018 of 2022) made by the second respondent are set aside and detenus (i) Mr. Bijeesh, aged 39 years Son of Mr. Bhaskaran, (ii) Mr. Nikhil @ Unni Kannan, aged 31 years Son of Mr. Divakaran and (iii) Mr. Sijohn @ Ottagam, aged 39 years, son of Mr. Devasikutti, now detained in Central Prison, Salem are directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case/s. 12. Captioned HCPs ordered on above terms.