Israeli Supreme Court Reviews Controversial Broadcasting Law Amid Procedural Complaints

The Israeli Supreme Court held a rare live hearing on Monday to discuss petitions against the Broadcasting Law proposed by Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi. The law had recently passed its second and third readings in the Knesset's Communications Committee. Unusually, the court, led by Supreme Court President Isaac Amit and Justices Alex Stein and Yechiel Kasher, examined the legislative process before the law was officially enacted.

Petitioners including the Success Association, the Journalists' Organization, and the Press Council argue that the law's passage violated standard legislative procedures. They claim the bill, a government initiative for broad reform, suffered from rushed discussions, frequent last-minute amendments, and lack of professional oversight. The petitioners also assert the bill was submitted without the required approval from the Government Legal Advisor and against recommendations from the Communications Authority.

The petitioners highlighted that Minister Karhi introduced last-minute textual changes just before the hearing, which they say reflects undue haste and disregard for legal norms. The law includes provisions favored by ultra-Orthodox parties, such as removing prohibitions on cross-ownership and structural separation between channel owners and news companies, while imposing uniform content requirements and investing in original productions.

Following the law's approval, the Communications Committee recently removed a section mandating a new broadcasting app intended to replace Idan Plus, which was expected to benefit the public. This move came after ultra-Orthodox parties opposed the app, fearing it would broadcast content they deemed inappropriate. The Government Legal Advisor opposed advancing the law, warning that it threatens the independence of free media in Israel and its vital democratic role.

The petitions were filed at the end of 2025 as the bill progressed without the Government Legal Advisor's approval, raising concerns about undermining parliamentary oversight and legal standards. The petitioners warn that the disregard for legal opinions sets a dangerous precedent for future legislative processes. The Supreme Court's intervention marks a significant moment in scrutinizing the legislative conduct surrounding this contentious media reform.