A judgment in the petitions examined the government's decision in the light of the accepted standards of administrative law - and in particular in light of the grounds of extraneous considerations and the grounds of reasonableness. Further I ruled that the government did not provide sufficient infrastructure to lift the burden of proof placed on its shoulders, and therefore there is no choice but to accept the petitions.
My colleague the judge Mintz He believes, as stated, otherwise, and his reasons are with him. There is no flaw in such a judicial dispute; On the contrary, the existence of such disputes is at the foundation of our legal system. My colleague is of course free to disagree with me as to the nature of the substantive considerations before the Government; Or to argue that the factual basis does not justify shifting the burden of proof to the government. But from here to the description of the majority opinion as relying on "justifiable reasoning" or as creating a situation in which "With the stroke of a hand, basic principles will be trampled upon"In our opinion - Rav Very The distance.
- On this note, I will also refer to According to my colleague who "The court must act in accordance with the existing rules outlined in our case law and be careful not to turn them into such that they can be changed and shaped in accordance with the circumstances brought before it" (at paragraph 149 of its opinion). Of course, I do not dispute the premise of this statement, but I will admit that I was puzzled by the conclusion, which seems to undermine one of the most basic and natural functions of the court. My colleague praises, and rightly so, considerations relating to legal stability and certainty. But in the case law it was consistently clarified that the court is authorized and even required To look directly at reality - without closing his eyes - and adapt the interpretation of the law to the changes in circumstances if there is justification for doing so. I will turn, for example, to the president's words M. Shamgar That was said about 30 years ago:
"Law is not static, because life is not static, neither that of the individual nor that of the collective. New or new-dressed problems arise and arise every day, and the court must resort to them and solve them, if they are brought through its gates. Legislation or legal precedent does not cover in advance all areas of the law, because it is the changes in times and the new and renewed circumstances that necessitate, more than once, a re-examination of the relevant law" (High Court of Justice 5364/94 Welner v. Chairman of the Israeli Labor Party, IsrSC 49(1) 758, 776 (1995); emphasis added - 10).