An excellent and very informed/informative discussion.
The most important point made is that the Supreme Court in its May 22 judgement had erred in forwarding the application for remission to the government of Gujarat instead of the government of Maharashtra where the trial had been conducted - in two stages, culminating in conviction.
This is clearly a breach of a judgement given by a constitution (i.e. a five-judge, or even larger) bench most categorically clarifying the issue - upholding the earlier judgements of the Supreme Court and endorsing the precedences.
The other two very significant points made are that seeking the views of (i) the judge presiding over the trial court and (ii) also that of the prosecuting agency is mandatory.
The moral (and political) dimensions have not been directly dealt with.