Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s attorney on Thursday sent the High Court of Justice a “Request to Cancel a Decision” that stated:
“With all due respect, the honorable court is requested to cancel its injunction from 9.14.23 which was issued without an authority and in express contradiction of the law, particularly clauses 5, 7, and 9 in the Rules of Procedure for the High Court of Justice 5744-1984 (hence “the rules”).
“With all due respect, the court is not authorized to decide for the respondents, and certainly when the subject is the Justice Minister and the Government of Israel, what should be written in the response declaration, and this, too, is the exclusive purview of the respondents.
“The court’s decision determining what respondents’ statement should contain deprives the respondents of their fundamental right to express themselves in a way that prevents the court’s action.”
On Thursday, the High Court of Justice issued an injunction against Minister Levin and the government ordering them to explain why Levin should not use his legal authority to assemble the Committee to Elect Judges without delay.
The injunction was issued by Justices David Mintz, Anat Baron, and Yael Vilner (at least one of whom, Vilner, is a conservative), in response to petitions against the minister’s failure to assemble the committee which appealed to the court to compel him to do so.
The court date for hearing the petitions is Tuesday, September 19.
Levin listed three reasons why he cannot be compelled to assemble the committee:
“First, the minister’s decision on not convening the committee was given against the background of complex and complicated constitutional negotiations aimed at forging a broad consensus in a public-social-political dispute. This is a public dispute on which the court may not rule.
“Second, the appointment of the minister as chairman of the committee, and his discretion, are part of a constitutional arrangement based on the balance between the branches of government. Interfering with the minister’s decisions and replacing his discretion with the discretion of the court will seriously damage the principle of separation of powers.
“Third, the minister has the sole authority to convene the committee. The minister acted in accordance with his authority and duty and made a considerate decision that at this time there is no need to convene the committee, among other things, because convening the committee now will harm the accomplishment of the purpose of the law. There was no flaw in the minister’s decision, and at least not a fundamental flaw that might justify judicial intervention.”
