Reg versus Habeas Corpus Ad-Subjiciendum

So we studied this case for AILET and I'm still stuck on it 🙄. It's like 'ye section sapne mein aata hai ab' (this section comes only in dream now). 'Reg vs Habeas Corpus Ad-Subjiciendum' (1753) is a landmark case on the writ of habeas corpus. The king of England (George II) issued the writ for a prisoner held without trial in the Tower of London, asking the judge to inquire if there was a lawful cause for his detention. Lord Chancellor Hardwicke held that the writ could be issued even for the king himself, giving some idea of its power as a check on the state. What do you guys think? Can the state be held accountable in India even if the SC or the government doesn't want to? Agree or disagree?