As per case facts, a mother filed a habeas corpus petition against the detention of her son (detenue) under the Goonda Act for one year, starting from 31.01.2025. The challenge ... arose because out of 13 cases against the detenue, 8 had resulted in acquittal, but the Detaining Authority only considered 7. Furthermore, essential documents for representation were provided in English without Kannada translations and some were illegible, despite the detenue only knowing Kannada. The question arose whether the detention order and its confirmation were sustainable under law. Finally, the High Court determined that the detention orders were unsustainable due to non-consideration of relevant material (acquittals) and the violation of the detenue's right to effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution by failing to provide documents in a readable and understandable language. The impugned orders were quashed, and the detenue was ordered to be set at liberty.