Ministerial committee to debate limits to High Court petitions

Authors of proposed amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary argue that petitions are being used as a political tool that bypasses the elected government • Israel Democracy Institute: Amendment is a blow to rule of law and public interest.

By Yair Altman, ISRAEL HAYOM

The Ministerial Committee on Legislation was scheduled to discuss on Sunday a proposed amendment to the Basic Law: The Judiciary that would allow an individual or group to petition the High Court of Justice only if they are personally harmed by the issue that is the subject of the petition.

“In recent years, we have witnessed growing erosion of the criteria that limit the right to petition the High Court to people who are directly hurt by the issue of the petition,” the proposed amendment’s abstract reads.

“The result is the increased number of petitions filed by organizations and individuals on political, diplomatic, and economic issues in which the petitioner has not direct ties to the subject of the petition and is not being personally harmed by the matter in which they are seeking assistance [from the court].”

The authors of the proposed amendment — MKs Miki Zohar and David Bitan (Likud), Moti Yogev and Bezalel Smotrich (Habayit Hayehudi), Yisrael Eichler (United Torah Judaism), Akram Hasson (Kulanu) and Oded Forer (Yisrael Beytenu) — argue that such petitions are intended to initiate judicial intervention in matters that do not fall under the usual prerogative of the judiciary, and in doing so skirt around the elected legislature and the will of the voters.

The Israel Democracy Institute sharply criticized the bill, calling it a “serious attack on the rule of law, the principle of separation of powers, and public interest.”

May 14, 2017 | 3 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

3 Comments / 3 Comments

  1. That’s how the attempt to get a recount here was stopped. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate who had no standing demanded a recount. She got it in several close states but each time it just increased Trump’s lead. So, the court said, “enough.”

    On a humorous note, I am looking forward to seeing a headline like: “Ministerial Committee to Debate Limits to Debate.”

    Argument Clinic – Monty Python’s The Flying Circus

    https://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y

    Love and Death [Woody Allen] – What if there is no God? [PL]

    https://youtu.be/IFjttC_AGsU

  2. :
    Oh, this is a slam dunk: Get the busybody petitioners and judges OUT of the always-palatial courthouses.

    Prevention being much more valuable than cure,

    1) Cut judiciary funding by 90%.
    2) Abolish 90% of the laws.

  3. Standing to bring a formal complaint or petition in a court of law is a basic democratic principle. If one does not show that he/she would be harmed/impacted directly from the law then he/she has no standing to sue. BTW, Wikipedia states that the Israel Democracy Institute is a “nonpartisan and generally liberal” institution. If so, then the IDI surely feels that the law will deny right to sue/petition to those organizations who wish to advance a political agenda through the court system and bypass the democratic process.