Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Yug Mohit Chaudhury, Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B , AOR Ms. Tanya Shrivastava, Adv Mr. Alagu Raja Bharathi B., Adv. Mr. Bharathimohan M., Adv. Ms. Priya R., Adv. Mr. Sabari Balapandian, Adv. Mr. Avinash Kumar, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Sharma, Adv. Mr. G. Sriram, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Ms. Nupur Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Vaidehi Rastogi, Adv. Mr. N.R. Elango, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR Mr. S. Agilesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Antariksh Singh, Adv.

Key Points: - The judgment emphasizes the accused's right to be supplied with documents, statements, and materials seized or collected during investigation, including exculpatory material not relied upon by the prosecution (!) (!) . - It discusses Rule 4 of the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2021, requiring supply of statements and list of documents seized during investigation, with an explanation that not relied upon materials must be disclosed; its final adoption and enforceability depend on incorporation by High Courts and amendments by State Governments and the Union of India (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Court reiterates that the right to fair trial under Article 21 is safeguarded by disclosure obligations and that non-compliance by states cannot prejudice the accused's rights; it cautions about delays and dilatory tactics in seeking such documents via late-stage letters (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The decision references prior jurisprudence (Manu Sharma, Manoj, Manjeet Singh Khera, V.K. Sasikala) to support the principle of disclosure and the necessity of providing documents/forms under Cr.P.C. 173, 207, 208, and Section 91, and potential for additional evidence under Cr.P.C. 3917 on appeal (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, noting late requests for documents without timely proper application and emphasizes that the death reference trials must be expeditiously completed, with the High Courts directed to adopt the Draft Rules within six months and for states to amend manuals within six months (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment clarifies that Draft Rule 4 applies during investigation and pre-trial, and not necessarily at the appellate stage unless adopted and given statutory force; the court cautions against using it to delay proceedings (!) (!) .

What is the scope and obligation to supply documents and materials seized or collected during investigation to the accused, including those not relied upon by the prosecution?

What is the interpretation and application of Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2021 (Rule 4) and its status in relation to the right to fair trial at trial, appellate, and investigation stages?

What is the appropriate procedural venue and timing for seeking access to such documents (during investigation, trial, or appellate stage) and the consequences of non-compliance by States/High Courts?