The High Court of Justice on Thursday approved the amendment to the Police Ordinance Law, a.k.a. the “Ben Gvir Law,” which determines that the powers of the Minister of National Security would be expanded so that he would be able to outline police policy in several areas. However, the court rejected by a majority of 5 to 4 the section that sought to grant the minister the same powers over police investigations as well.
The judges unanimously ruled that the amendment does not detract from the police’s obligation to act independently and that it does not change the existing relationship between the government and the police, which are still required to “exercise professional and independent judgment,” and therefore should be approved.
However, the section that sought to allow the minister to outline a general policy on investigations was rejected because five out of the nine judges believed that it violated “the suspect’s constitutional rights, and does not pass the limitation clause.”
The limitation clause appears in Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, and in Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation, both of which marked the judicial revolution introduced in the 1990s by then-Supreme Court President Aharon Barak.
The limitation clause outlines four conditions that must be met to justify a violation of constitutional rights:
- The violation must be enacted through a law or derived from legal authorization.
- The law must align with the values of the State of Israel as both a Jewish and democratic state.
- The violation must serve a legitimate purpose.
- The violation must be proportionate, meaning it does not exceed what is necessary.
Former Acting Supreme Court President Justice Uzi Fogelman, who retired last October and was the head of the panel, rejected the section concerning investigations, together with current Acting Justice Yitzhak Amit, and Justices Ofer Grosskopf, Yechiel Kasher, and Yael Wilner. Justices Noam Solberg, Yosef Elron, Alex Stein, and Gila Kanfei Steinitz approved it.
Justice Minister Yariv Levin strongly criticized the decision, stating: “In what other country can judges, who elect themselves, overturn by a single vote a law passed by parliament in three readings? Only in Israel is democracy being replaced by the rule of a small group of judges who even refuse to broadcast their questionable election procedures live.”
Levin added: “Many now realize this cannot continue. It’s time to restore authority to the sovereign—the people. I hope all coalition members will rise to the occasion and enable the necessary reforms in the judicial selection process.”
Minister Ben Gvir also condemned the decision, saying: “Once again, the High Court of Justice asserts itself as the sovereign authority, disregarding the will of the voters. Its ruling to strip the police ordinance of its authority aims to undermine the minister’s power and shift control over the police to the Attorney General’s Office. In a true democracy, the minister in charge sets police policy, but the High Court seems uninterested in that principle.”
