Israeli High Court Authority Over Elected Officials Affirmed
A legal academic argues that Israeli elected officials, including Knesset members and ministers, are not exempt from legal limitations and are subject to judicial review by the High Court of Justice (Bagatz). This comes amid criticism from some coalition members and their supporters who claim that because they are chosen by the public, they should be able to act without restriction through legislation or government decisions, and that the High Court lacks the authority to challenge them.
The author refutes this claim by citing fundamental principles of liberal democracy, including equality, good faith, absence of conflicts of interest, protection of citizens' rights, and crucially, the rule of law and legalism. The principle of legalism dictates that government authorities can only act within the scope of their legal authority, and any actions exceeding this are illegal and subject to judicial annulment. This is supported by Basic Law: The Government, which states the government can act in the name of the state subject to law, and Interpretation Ordinance, defining 'law' broadly.
Furthermore, Basic Law: Judiciary grants courts, including the High Court, the authority to adjudicate all matters not within the purview of other courts, including actions by the Knesset, and to issue orders against state authorities acting unlawfully. The author emphasizes that this applies to both the government and the Knesset. Additionally, Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation and Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty stipulate that rights granted by these laws can only be infringed upon by a law that is fitting, granting the High Court the power to disqualify such legislation.
The principle of the supremacy of law asserts that the law stands above all individuals and authorities, including the government and Knesset. The author contends that elected officials cannot logically claim the validity of new laws they enact while ignoring older, valid laws passed by previous Knesset members. He criticizes this as a double standard, arguing that current officials are legally obligated to respect existing legislation and court rulings, even if they disagree with them.
Ultimately, the author concludes that the criticism leveled against the High Court lacks legal basis. He asserts that existing law supersedes new Knesset legislation or government decisions that are unlawful. The interpretation of existing law and the determination of the legality of Knesset and government actions are vested in the courts, primarily the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice. He stresses that all individuals, including state officials, must act lawfully, as everyone is equal before the law. Attacking the High Court and refusing to comply with its rulings, he warns, undermines the rule of law and liberal democracy in Israel.
