New Delhi: Today’s judgment by a bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar, holding that detention by any investigating agency beyond 24 hours violates Article 22(2) and that the 24-hour limit within which an accused has to be produced before a magistrate begins from the actual detention and not formal arrest, is a significant and much-needed direction.The trouble is: How to get the investigating agencies to play ball?Today’s order also asks the magistrates to “refuse remand where detention exceeds a reasonable period”.Welcome as the directions may be, recent history has shown us there is little hope the authorities will actually follow them. Unless the top court actually sends out a strong message by punishing some erring officers for not following its orders, today’s order will likely be treated just like the landmark D.K. Basu judgment: sparingly and at the whims an fancy of the authorities.We are in an age where investigating agencies, backed by the executive, have thrown all established norms to the wind, often, in the process of doing their political masters’ bidding, ignoring settled law.Example: per the settled law in Arnesh Kumar versus State of Bihar, for offences punishable by imprisonment of up to seven years, the police cannot make automatic or routine arrests. Before arresting anybody, the police must serve a notice of appearance to the accused. The same judgment also held that judicial officials can’t handle detention cases in a mechanical manner and must pass speaking orders in such cases.Both these directions are seldom followed.Just like the ‘bail in the norm, jail the exception’ principle. Cases where killers and accused in heinous crimes are set on bail by courts, including the Constitutional courts, while seemingly innocent persons arrested on trumped-up charges languish behind bars for years without there being any concrete evidence against them.Killers and those who lead riots against minorities and the underprivileged are, however, often let off lightly. While a jailed activist is forced to remain in jail just because the courts mechanically agree with the police about their guilt, even though the prosecution hasn’t even begun.Two years ago, in November 2024, a Supreme Court came down heavily on various governments for continuing with the arbitrary and illegal practice of demolishing houses of accused without following due process.Bulldozer demolitions, the court noted, reminded it of a “lawless, ruthless state of affairs”. It then went on to issue a slew of guidelines that all law enforcement agencies – civic as well as criminal – would have to strictly follow before deciding to demolish anybody’s property.One key direction was that sufficient time – at least 15 days – be given to the affected person to challenge the demolition order or vacate the property. Failure to do so, the court said, would lead to contempt proceedings.However, this order, like many others, is routinely and brazenly flouted while the courts remain silent witness.Last month, the Aam Aadmi government partially demolished the house of the main accused in the murder of anti-drugs activist Parvinder Singh Jhota.In another case, this one from Lucknow, the authorities demolished the house of the main accused in the day-light murder of three members of a family.It is incumbent upon the Supreme Court to ensure its latest directions are followed strictly.Maneesh Chhibber is an independent journalist.