In an unprecedented move, the government on Sunday approved a unanimous decision declaring it would disobey a High Court ruling.
Over the course of this government’s tenure, ministers have repeatedly called for the government to ignore Supreme Court rulings with which they disagreed.
Sunday’s decision, however, a clear, official, and unanimous declaration that the government reserves the right to determine which court rulings it will obey, is different.
In doing so, the government risks bringing another constitutional crisis to Israel’s doorstep.
Whatever one thinks of the court’s decision, the government’s response marks yet another dangerous escalation in the long-running confrontation between Israel’s executive and judicial branches.
Among the appointments drawing scrutiny is that of Yifat Ben Hay-Segev as council chair.
The dispute centers on appointments to the Second Authority, the regulator overseeing Israel’s commercial television and radio broadcasters.
Petitioners challenged the appointments, arguing that several members of the new council faced unresolved conflicts of interest, demonstrated political bias toward regulated media outlets, and were selected through a flawed process that could undermine the authority’s independence.
Among the appointments drawing scrutiny is that of Yifat Ben Hay-Segev as council chair.
Ben Hay-Segev testified in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Case 4000 trial in 2022, raising questions due to the prime minister’s conflict-of-interest arrangement, as he himself participated in approving her appointment during a cabinet meeting in March.
These allegations have yet to be resolved, and importantly, the court did not rule that the appointments were unlawful or politically motivated.
Rather, Justice Alex Stein issued an interim order freezing the council’s activities while the petitions remain under judicial review. The order also came after the state failed to submit its response by the court’s deadline and instead requested additional time.
In other words, the court has not reached a final conclusion. It simply determined that a body exercising significant regulatory authority should not begin operating until the legal questions surrounding its composition are answered.
Governments are entitled to believe courts have overstepped their authority.
There is an enormous difference between criticizing a judicial ruling and refusing to comply with it
Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi certainly does, arguing in the government decision he initiated that judges cannot override explicit legislation and accusing the court of abusing its powers.
But there is an enormous difference between criticizing a judicial ruling and refusing to comply with it.
In any democratic system governed by the rule of law, governments do not get to decide which court orders are binding.
The moment an executive claims that authority for itself, judicial review becomes optional, and every future legal dispute risks becoming a test of political strength.
In reality, the government had every opportunity to make its case before the court. Rather than submitting its response on time, it sought an extension. Having failed to meet the court’s deadline, it is now portraying judicial oversight itself as illegitimate. That is not a convincing defense.
Nor should the concerns raised by the petitioners be dismissed out of hand. When legal advisers and watchdog groups raise questions about appointments to the very body responsible for regulating much of Israel’s broadcast media, the appropriate response is to address those concerns transparently rather than declare that the regulator will operate regardless of what the courts decide.
The Second Authority is no ordinary government agency. It oversees one of the most politically sensitive areas in any democracy: the media. Public confidence in its independence is essential. Even the appearance of political interference deserves careful examination before the council begins exercising its considerable powers.
More broadly, Sunday’s decision reflects a worrying pattern that has characterized this government’s tenure.
Rather than engaging with criticism, whether from the courts, legal professionals, watchdog organizations, or the public, the government increasingly frames disagreement itself as illegitimate. If the coalition believes the High Court has exceeded its authority, there are legal and constitutional avenues available to challenge that balance of power. Simply declaring that an inconvenient court order will not be recognized is not one of them.
That approach may energize parts of its political base, and that could well be the main factor behind the decision with elections approaching, but it does little to strengthen public trust in Israel’s democratic institutions.
And if Netanyahu hopes to persuade Israelis that he seeks a broad national coalition capable of healing the country’s divisions, Sunday’s decision sends precisely the opposite message.
Source:
www.jpost.com
