Lawmakers affiliated with the Shas coalition party are reportedly pushing forward with a bill aimed at temporarily extending the time frame within which High Court justices can issue rulings on petitions. This move is seen as an attempt to delay a widely anticipated decision that could strike down a key component of the government’s ongoing judicial overhaul.
In an unprecedented development, a leaked draft ruling surfaced last week, revealing the court’s inclination to invalidate, with an 8-7 majority, a law restricting the court’s authority to overturn government and ministerial decisions based on the doctrine of reasonableness.
The Shas proposal, expected to be officially submitted on Monday, seeks to extend the post-retirement period for justices to issue rulings from three months to nine months. This extension would enable justices to defer the decision without excluding the votes of two justices who retired after the September hearing on the law. The current regulations only allow their inclusion in rulings for three months post-retirement.
Proponents of the amendment argue that it aims to prevent the court from being compelled to issue a ruling in the next two weeks, especially amid the ongoing state of war. They contend that this delay would prevent the reemergence of deep societal divisions, maintaining the national unity essential during emergencies, according to the draft of the Shas proposal.
Shas MK Yossi Taieb emphasized the acceptance of the court’s ultimate ruling but questioned the timing of raising the issue. Justice Minister Yariv Levin has signaled potential support from the coalition for the proposed measure.
However, opposition figures, including Yair Lapid and Gideon Sa’ar, expressed strong opposition to the proposal, underscoring deep-seated distrust of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling coalition. The government’s past agenda, aimed at diminishing the judiciary’s power, remains a point of contention.
Last week, Levin urged the court to postpone the ruling, citing concerns about potential disputes during wartime. Critics accused the government of attempting to run out the clock to prevent former court president Esther Hayut and justice Anat Baron, both retired but present during the September hearing, from contributing to the ruling.
The Shas proposal aims to address this concern by allowing Hayut and Baron to have their opinions considered, thereby maintaining the 8-7 majority in favor of striking down the law.
If approved, this ruling would represent the first instance of Israel’s top court nullifying a quasi-constitutional Basic Law, a move that is likely to provoke strong reactions from right-wing voters and politicians.
Reports suggest that Shas is pushing for swift approval of the measure in the Knesset before the mid-January deadline for Hayut’s and Baron’s votes to be included in the ruling, alleviating the pressure for an immediate decision.
The underlying legal dispute involves a July amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary, which prohibited all courts, including the High Court, from reviewing or overturning government decisions based on the principle of “reasonableness.” Critics argued that this undermined crucial safeguards for Israeli democracy, while proponents contended that it limited the court’s interference in policy decisions.
The government had put its judicial overhaul agenda on hold since October 7, following an unprecedented attack by Hamas terrorists in southern Israel. The proposed changes had previously triggered widespread protests and societal divisions.
Former minister Galit Distel-Atbaryan publicly apologized for her role in contributing to internal strife over the judicial overhaul, acknowledging harm caused to citizens. However, MK Simcha Rothman, a key proponent of judicial reforms, asserted widespread support in Israel for such changes.