In this type of application, it is to examine the legality of the decision of the governmental authority. The question that the court presents itself in this type of application is whether a reasonable governmental authority would have been entitled to accept the decision that was made. If the answer is in the affirmative, the court will reject the appeal even if it itself would not have accepted it. This is not the case with regard to the approval of the elections. In this type of proceeding - in which the court is part of the process of perfecting the decision itself - the Supreme Court must express its own approach. The question it must present to itself is not whether the decision of the The Elections Committee is reasonable, even if he does not agree with it; The question he must present to himself is whether he approves of the decision that was made (see Klinghofer, in his aforementioned article, at p. 290). I discussed this in the Yassin case (Civil Appeal Authority 7504/95 Yassin v. Registrar of Parties, IsrSC 50(2) 454 (1991)), where the provision of section 6(d) of the Parties Law was discussed, which states - as in the case before us - that if the Registrar of Parties refuses to register a party, he must transfer "the matter of the refusal and its reasons for the approval of the Supreme Court". In explaining this provision, I wrote:
'According to this provision, the Supreme Court is part of the decision-making process, it does not sit as a mere auditing court. The question that the Supreme Court must ask itself is not whether a reasonable registrar of parties was entitled to make the decision. The question that the court asks is whether, in its opinion, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, there was room to refuse the registration' (ibid., at pp. 70-76).'"
(For a further discussion of these distinctions, see also: Civil Appeal 10547/05 Registrar of Contractors v. S.I.A. Rafael Projects Ltd., [published in Nevo], paragraph 30 of the judgment (September 9, 2012); CA 6255/12 Central Elections Committee for the Nineteenth Knesset v. MK Haneen Zoabi, [published in Nevo] paragraph 15 of the judgment of President A. Grunis (August 20, 2013)).