Another illustration will also show how narrow the scope of article 22 is. In a case that came before the Central provinces High Court a few months ago the High Court found that the charges were groundless. The facts and the evidence placed before it by the detenu concerned showed that there was no ground for the apprehension entertained by the Provincial Government and that the facts mentioned by it and the grounds for arrest communicated by it to the detenu had no basis in fact. I suppose that the Central Provinces Government communicated definite charges to the detenu because it feared that the High Court might otherwise hold that the detention was not justified, but article 22, as placed before us and as passed by the Assembly, would afford scarcely any relief in such a case. Neither the Central Government nor the Provincial Governments would be under an obligation to communicate definite charges to the detenus and consequently the High Courts would be unable to exercise even the little supervision that they have so far been able to do.
