The High Court of Justice appeared reluctant Monday to intervene in the legislative process behind Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi’s sweeping broadcasting reform before the bill has passed into law, repeatedly questioning whether the petitions against it were premature.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Isaac Amit and Justices Alex Stein and Yechiel Kasher heard three petitions filed by Hatzlaha, the Union of Journalists in Israel and the Israel Press Council, which alleged a series of serious defects in the bill’s advancement.
A separate petition filed by Yesh Atid MKs Shelly Tal Meron and Yorai Lahav-Hertzanu is expected to be heard separately.
The hearing comes as the coalition races to bring the revised bill to its final Knesset votes before parliament begins its pre-election recess later this week.
Justices question timing of intervention
The judges focused heavily on whether the court should take the exceptional step of intervening while the legislative process remains underway, particularly when it will soon become clear whether the bill will pass.
Amit said the central question was why the court should rule on the petitions at this stage, noting that the bill could still either pass or fail.
Stein asked whether there was any precedent for the Supreme Court intervening in legislation before the process had been completed. “The court is a passive body, not an active one,” Stein said. “It does not enter in the middle of political processes.”
Intervening at this stage, he said, could undermine the boundaries of the separation of powers. Any procedural “fouls,” he added, could be considered if and when the bill became law.
Kasher similarly told the petitioners that their main difficulty was the timing of the case.
“You are asking us to stop a legislative process in the Knesset, something that has never been done,” he said, asking whether the alleged defects approached the level of extremity that could justify such a step.
Kasher added that court intervention two days before the expected vote would itself carry enormous weight.
The petitions, however, were initially filed months ago, with the first two submitted in October 2025, rather than immediately before the bill’s expected final votes. The Israel Press Council (IPC) filed an additional petition in December.
A representative of the Knesset argued that issuing an interim order would effectively amount to issuing a final order, since the Knesset’s current session is due to end this week.
Amit said at the end of the hearing that, should the bill pass, further petitions would likely challenge both its substance and the legislative process behind it. The procedural claims, he said, would not disappear.
Kasher also told the attorney representing Karhi that, if the minister insisted on advancing the legislation despite the objections raised throughout the process, he could not later argue against judicial intervention in the resulting law.
The court did not immediately issue a decision, though the judges’ remarks indicated considerable skepticism toward intervening before the legislative process had concluded.
Petitioners cite procedural defects
The petitioners argue that the bill was advanced through a chain of procedural defects, without sufficient professional oversight, preparatory work, or time for meaningful deliberation.
The government proposal was submitted to the Knesset with an exceptional footnote stating that it had not received the attorney-general’s approval, as required under her directives.
The petitioners later sought further court intervention over the establishment of a special committee, chaired by Likud MK Galit Distel Atbaryan, to consider the legislation instead of the Knesset Economic Affairs Committee.
They cited the position of the Knesset legal adviser, who said the Economic Affairs Committee was the body authorized to handle the bill, as well as objections raised by the Attorney-General’s Office and the Israel Regulatory Authority.
Bill advances toward final vote
The petitioners submitted an update on Monday, arguing that the problems had continued to accumulate, culminating in last-minute amendments presented by Karhi as technical wording changes.
“They are trampling every procedure, rule, section, and provision of law,” they argued.
The bill has undergone repeated revisions throughout the legislative process. The special committee approved it for its second and third readings last week, before reconvening Sunday to introduce additional changes.