In a development pertaining to the Bilkis Bano case, two of the convicts involved, Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah and Rajubhai Babulal Soni, have filed a plea before the Supreme Court questioning the judicial propriety of a judgment that set aside remission orders issued by the Gujarat government. 

The plea highlights a discrepancy in the rulings of different benches of the Supreme Court on the issue of premature release and the applicable state government policy.

The plea specifically references two contradictory rulings by separate benches of the Supreme Court. One bench, led by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, held in January that the state of Maharashtra had jurisdiction to consider early release applications from the convicts, as they were sentenced by a special court in Mumbai. This decision effectively rendered the remission orders by the Gujarat government irrelevant.

Contrarily, another bench, presided over by Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath, had earlier directed the Gujarat government to consider a remission application filed by one of the convicts in May 2022. However, the subsequent bench led by Justice Nagarathna overturned this decision, alleging that the May 2022 order was obtained through fraudulent means, thereby deeming it null and void.

The convicts' plea raises fundamental questions about the authority of a subsequent bench to overturn the judgment of an earlier bench, especially when the two rulings are diametrically opposed. They argue that the proper course of action should have been to refer the matter to a larger bench if there were doubts about the legality of the earlier judgment.

Moreover, the plea challenges the jurisdiction of the Gujarat government in the matter, asserting that the Union of India should be considered the appropriate authority for exercising powers of remission, given that the case was investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The convicts contend that the appropriate legal recourse for challenging the Supreme Court's decision would have been through a review petition followed by a curative petition, rather than filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

In light of these arguments, the convicts urge the Supreme Court to refer the matter to a larger bench for a comprehensive examination of the legal and factual aspects of the case, ultimately seeking a final adjudication on the matter.

The plea underscores the complexity and contentious nature of the Bilkis Bano case, which has been a subject of considerable legal debate and public scrutiny.