Moments after the Knesset enacted the law to abolish the reasonable standard in judicial review of decisions by elected officials and the government, three petitions were filed calling on the Supreme Court to intervene. At the same time requests were filed for interim injunctions preventing the law from coming into effect.
If there are no unexpected developments the petitions will be handled by duty Judge David Mintz. Usually the duty judge would rule within a few hours whether the petition is to be thrown out without response, passed on5to the Knesset, Attorney General and MK Simcha Rothman (Religious Zionist party), who is chairperson of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, for a response, or whether the petitions will be considered by a panel of judges. If necessary, court discussions could take place during the court's summer recess because of the seriousness of the issue. The court will hand down its decision on the petitions either tomorrow or in the coming few days.
According to Supreme Court protocol, one judge alone cannot reject a petition and it requires a panel of three judges. One of the two duty judges in line to join the panel would be Judge Noam Solberg. Mintz himself is considered the most conservative of the Supreme Court judges and in the past he has expressed his opposition to striking down basic laws, of which the new law is one.
The petitioner claim that the law is unconstitutional
One of the petitions has been filed by a range of businesspeople, public figures and senior army reserve officers including Dov Moran, the inventor of the disk-on-key, Israel Women's Network chair Ella Alkalai, Gen. (res.) Tal Rousso and former MK Stav Shafir. The petitioners are represented by Advs. Idan Seger, Ohad Rosen, and Hagai Kalai.
A second petition was filed by the Movement for Quality Government in Israel by Advs. Eliad Shraga and others. The third petition was filed by the Movement for Civil Democracy and Darkenu by Advs. Gilead Sher, Gilead Barnea and Eitan Toker.
The petitions claim that the amendment to the law is unconstitutional, and this is essentially based on two types of claims - procedural and substantive. On the procedural level, it is claimed that the procedure in which the bill was passed was flawed, and this is because the bill was presented as a bill by the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, but in practice it was a private bill by MK Simcha Rothman, contrary to the Knesset's statutes.
On the substantive level, it is claimed, among other things, that this is an abuse of the Knesset's constituent authority, which will cause regime instability, and that although it is claimed that the amendment to the law has general applicability, in practice it is directed towards the concrete interests of the coalition that passed it and for the benefit of its own goals.
Published by Globes, Israel business news - en.globes.co.il - on July 24, 2023.
© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd., 2023.