India, Nov. 21 -- The Supreme Court's decision that governors and the President cannot be bound by judicially imposed timelines in granting assent to legislation clearly demarcates the powers of the judiciary and executive, but also effectively rolls back a previous judgment that had clamped fetters on gubernatorial powers. This is likely to perpetuate the trend of escalating conflict in several states between the elected government and Raj Bhavans. In response to a presidential reference, a five-judge Constitution bench of the apex court - the current Chief Justice of India, the incoming Chief Justice of India and a future Chief Justice of India among them - said the Constitution envisages a carefully balanced structure for the processing of state legislation and that does not permit courts to impose procedural timelines on constitutional authorities. By ruling that the governor's discretion cannot be reduced to a purely "perfunctory" role, the apex court has signalled a very limited role for judicial review in such cases and that too possibly not a decisive role. The bench has attempted to strike a balance by saying that courts may issue a limited direction requiring a governor to exercise one of the constitutionally prescribed options in case of "prolonged, deliberate inaction". But by leaving the terms up for interpretation and underlining that the courts cannot dictate an option for the governor to choose, the court has opened the possibility of protracted litigation by complainant states that might end with no conclusive direction. There is no way to read this verdict except as a victory for the Union government and the Raj Bhavans. Expect more confrontation between governors and elected governments in states ruled by non-BJP parties and a return of the so-called pocket veto by Raj Bhavans. The problem of some governors overstepping their constitutional boundaries goes back to the early years of Independence and is a lacuna born out of infirmities in political and accountability structures. Yet, the phenomenon of Raj Bhavans attempting to emerge as parallel power centres in some states is an immediate one. This newspaper was clear that the previous judgment, passed in April, overreached in prescribing timelines to the President. But that doesn't mean that the practice of governors indefinitely sitting on bills passed by the legislative assembly should go unchecked. The Constitution bench verdict is a blow to federalism....