In view of these difficulties, the case law has developed two tools that ease, to a certain extent, the lifting of the burden of proof imposed on the petitioner. The first of these is the recognition that the existence of extraneous considerations can be proven not only with direct and positive evidence, which, as noted, is rare, but also on the basis of circumstantial evidence and external signs that give rise to a real suspicion of the matter. Thus, for example, when a decision is "silent" regarding the reasons underlying it, or when there is an inexplicable disconnect between the reasons for the decision or the words of its authors in the discussions preceding its adoption, and its content, this may indicate the consideration of extraneous considerations (Matter United Torah Judaism, paragraph 49 of the judge's judgment A. Fogelman; Interest The Open House, at p. 40; High Court of Justice 4500/07 Yachimovich v. Council of the Second Authority for Radio and Television, paragraph 12 of the President's judgment D. Beinisch [Nevo] (21.11.2007) (hereinafter: The Yachimovich Affair)). In addition, the extreme unreasonableness of the decision itself may also serve as an indication that extraneous considerations were at its core (see, for example: High Court of Justice 3823/22 Netanyahu v. Attorney General, paragraph 5 of my colleague Judge's opinion D. Barak-Erez [Nevo] (17.7.2023); Barak-Erez, Volume 2, at pp. 749-751).
The second tool that the case law provided to petitioners dealing with the difficulty of proving that the authority considered extraneous considerations is to transfer the burden of proof to the responding authority, where the petitioner succeeded in raising a real doubt as to the validity of its considerations (High Court of Justice 58681-11-25 Israel Bar Association v. Minister of Justice, paragraph 13 of the President's Opinion Y. Amit [Nevo] (3.12.2025); Appeal Petition/Administrative Claim 2638/20 Sustainable Association for Culture, Art, Music v. Mayor of Jerusalem, paragraph 2 of the judge's opinion A. Fogelman [Nevo] (September 6,2020) (hereinafter: The Matter of a Sustainable Association); Zamir, Volume 5, at p. 3541). Thus, it was ruled that: