From this principle of separation of powers derive basic and fundamental principles regarding the manner in which the court must conduct judicial review of the actions of other authorities. With regard to judicial review of the legislative branch, the principle of separation of powers implies that the court should not examine the wisdom of the legislature or the effectiveness of the law:
"The basic point of departure is that the role of legislation has been assigned to the legislature. He is the loyal representative of the sovereign - the people. The national responsibility for enacting laws that will achieve a proper purpose by proportionate means rests with the legislature, in accordance with the principle of separation of powers. He has the tools to locate the proper purpose and to choose the appropriate means. The court did not come to replace the legislature's considerations with its own. The court does not step into the shoes of the legislature. He does not ask himself what means he would have chosen if he had been a member of the legislature. The court exercises judicial review. He examines the constitutionality of the law, not its wisdom. The question is not whether the law is good, effective, justified" (High Court of Justice 1715/97 Israel Investment Managers Association v. Minister of Finance, IsrSC 51(4) 367, 386 (1997)).
As far as the executive branch is concerned, the principle of separation of powers requires the court to exercise restraint when conducting judicial review of the decisions of the administrative authorities. In this framework, too, the court should not examine whether the policy set by the government is desirable, and it should not substitute its discretion for its own:
"The general point of departure lies in the basic concepts of judicial review, on which it is permissible to expand on them and the reasons underlying them. This court does not serve as a court that decides on behalf of the authority in professional matters within its jurisdiction; The court does not examine the wisdom or effectiveness of the decision; He will not replace the discretion of the authority with his own judgment; and even if he had decided otherwise if he had been in the shoes of the Authority, he would not change its decision as long as there was no flaw in it in the level of legality that establishes grounds for intervention in the administrative act" (High Court of Justice 6271/11 Delek Israel Fuel Company in Tax Appeal v. Minister of Finance, para. 11 [Nevo] (November 26, 2012); and see also, Mini-Many: High Court of Justice 2053/21 Mekorot Water Company in a Tax Appeal v. Director of the Government Water and Sewage Authority, Paragraph 30 [Nevo] (January 26, 2022); High Court of Justice 5254/20 Tel Ya Luxury Events in Tax Appeal v. Government of Israel, para. 12 [Nevo] (August 17, 2020); High Court of Justice 8948/22 Sheinfeld v. Knesset, paragraph 4 of my opinion [Nevo] (January 18, 2023); Yoav Dotan, Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion, Vol. 1, 149 and 157 (2022)).