High Court of Justice 63904-03-26

High Court of Justice 64783-03-26

High Court of Justice 75014-03-26

High Court of Justice 75473-03-26

High Court of Justice 4588-04-26

Judgment

President Yitzhak Amit:

The petitions before us are directed at the government's decisions regarding the appointment of the chairman and members of the Council of the Second Authority for Television and Radio (hereinafter: Council of the Second Authority or Council).  On March 24,2026, the first government decision that is the subject of the petitions was made (Decision 4020 of the government-37 "Appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Council of the Second Authority for Television and Radio" (24.3.2026) (Below: The government's decision).  Shortly thereafter, and against the background of complaints of a conflict of interest in which the Prime Minister was involved in the process of making the government's decision, on March 31,2026, another government decision was passed, Resolution 4037 of the 37th Government "Additional approval of the government's tax decision' 4020 From the day 24.3.2026 Regarding the appointment of the chairman and members of the Council of the Second Authority for Television and Radio" (31.3.2026) (hereinafter: The government's decision to revote, which together with the government's decision will be called: Government Decisions).  At the outset, it should be noted that the government's decisions were made accordingly Section 7(a) 30The Second Authority for Television and Radio Law, התש"N-1990 (Hereinafter: The Second Authority Law or The Law).

Normative Background - The Second Authority, the Council of the Second Authority and its Powers

1. The Second Authority for Television and Radio is a public corporation established by virtue of the Second Authority Law (hereinafter: the Second Authority or the Authority). In accordance with the law, the Authority is responsible for the conduct of commercial broadcasts in Israel through the granting of franchises and their supervision.  In view of the public interests at stake, the format of broadcasting according to the law is indeed carried out by private franchisees, but under close public supervision.  This supervision is intended to maintain professional standards, journalistic ethics, fairness, and the promotion of the public interest (Yuval Karniel, Commercial Communications Law 35 (2003)).  The Authority is composed of two main bodies: (1) the Council of the Second Authority (Sections 7-24 of the Law) and (2) the Director General (Sections 25-28 of the Law) (see also: AAA 10845/06 Keshet Broadcasting Ltd.    Second Authority for Television and Radio, paragraph 85 (November 11,2008)); High Court of Justice 3073/99 The Movement for Quality Government in Israel v.  Minister of Education, Culture and Sport, IsrSC 55(3) 529,532 (2000) (hereinafter: High Court of Justice 3073/99)).  Our matter focuses on the Council of the Second Authority, as stated.
2. Section 23 of the Second Authority Law determines the functions of the Council. Among other things, the section stipulates that the Council shall supervise on an ongoing basis the conduct of broadcasts by those authorized to broadcast, and the maintenance of the services they provide (Section 23(2)(a) of the Law).  In addition, every year the Council examines the compliance of television license holders with the law, the Council's rules and the terms of the license (section 23(2)(b) of the Law).  Section 24 of the Second Authority Law further states that the Council shall establish rules, inter alia, regarding ethics in television and radio broadcasts and advertisements (section 24(a)(2) of the Law); making the broadcasting schedule accessible to people with disabilities (Section 24(a)(3) of the Law); protection of minors and helpless persons (Section 24(a)(4) of the Law); prohibited broadcasts (Section 24(a)(5) of the Law), and more.  Indeed, the Council made use of its authority by virtue of Section 24 of the Law and enacted various rules, including, for example, the Rules of the Second Authority for Television and Radio (Advertising Content on Television), 5782-2021; the Rules of the Second Authority for Television and Radio (Taking of Broadcast Time), 5767-2007; Rules of the Second Authority for Television and Radio (Classification, Marking and Prohibition of Harmful Broadcasts - Issuing Warnings), 5763-2002; Rules of the Second Authority for Television and Radio (Ethics in Television Advertising), 5754-1994; Rules of the Second Authority for Television and Radio (Ethics in Television and Radio Broadcasting), 5754-1994.

Also, Accordingly To Article 33 to the law, Council of the Second Authority Authorized to grant franchises and licenses for radio and television broadcasts, Subject to the provisions of the law.  Council may refrain from extending a license due to a violation of the law, Council Rules or License Terms (Section 35A(a) Law).  The acquisition or substantial transfer of means of control in an authorized broadcasting licensee requires consent Council In advance (Section 36(b) Law).  In the cases that are subscribed In section 37 Law The Second Authority, the Council Nose is authorized to revoke, restrict or reduce a license or franchise granted by - Thus, the Council may bring about the cessation of the activity of a media entity, to reduce it of such activity or to limit it.

3. A unique aspect of the Council's activity is related to the activities of the news companies. In accordance with Section D of Chapter D of the Second Authority Law, news broadcasts on supervised channels that are required by law and the license to broadcast news (currently Channels 12 and 13) will be operated by a separate news company that will operate under a special license granted to it by the Council (Section 63A(c) of the Law).  The separation between the commercial franchise and the news company stems from a desire to prevent the involvement of commercial interests in the operation of the news company (High Court of Justice 4500/07 Yachimovich v.  Council of the Second Authority for Radio and Television, para.  1 (November 21,2007)); in this regard, see also the explanatory notes to the Second Authority for Television and Radio Bill, 5747-1986; Government 2,3 (hereinafter: the Second Authority Bill): "Due to the sensitivity of the subject of news, it is proposed that the news be produced and broadcast by a separate company whose shareholders will be the Authority and the owners of television broadcasting franchises").  This separation of the news companies was also intended to neutralize political interests in news broadcasting (see in this context the words of then-Minister of Communications Amnon Rubinstein in a discussion in the committee designated for the enactment of the Second Authority Law: "The government will not have a majority in the news company.  It will have representatives from both the franchise owners and the authority [...] In my opinion, this is the best solution for the news company.  In this way, a buffer will be created between the government and the news system, and thus we will not entrust all power to economic interests" (Minutes of Session 2 of the Committee on the Second Network, 6-7-11th Knesset (January 6,1987)).

Accordingly, the Second Authority Law grants the Council various powers relating to news companies and news broadcasts.  Thus, among other things, the law instructs that 40% of the members of the board of directors of a news company will be appointed by the Council (Section 67(a) to the law).  The representatives of the Council of the Second Authority on the board of directors of the news company hold significant influence given that in order to appoint the director of a news company, who is also the editor-in-chief, a majority of at least 75% of the board members of the news company is required (Section 68(a) to the law).  Beyond that, the Second Authority Law instructs that Purchasing news broadcasts from an external party requires the approval of Council and is done under conditions that you will determine (Section 63A1 Law).  The law also states that the council is authorized to determine the dates and length of news broadcasts (Section 63(b) Law - It should be noted Because in accordance with Section 98(2) In the Law The Media (Broadcasts), 588"and-2026 (Hereinafter: The Broadcasting Law) and the mechanism of application set forth therein, This section will be repealed on the day 1.1.2027).

4. In the field of radio, the Council of the Second Authority serves as the regulator of the regional radio market (section 72 of the Law). Incidentally, it is vested, inter alia, with the authority to determine the division of the country into concession areas, to determine the number of regional stations that may operate in them; to conduct a tender for the allocation of radio franchises and to extend the validity of the franchises without a tender for additional periods.
5. The appointment of council members and its chairman is regulated by section 7 of the law and is made by the government on the recommendation of the Minister of Communications (hereinafter also: the Minister). This was after the Minister held a consultation process with many bodies, including organizations of writers, teachers and artists, institutions of higher education, the Academy of the Hebrew Language, and the Israel Academy of Sciences and Sciences (section 7(a) of the Law; see also the Attorney General's Directive 1.1550 "Establishment of the Executive Committee of the Broadcasting Authority and its Plenum" 5-7 (31).    2000) (hereinafter: Guideline 1.  1550)).  The council consists of 15 members, who, according to the Second Authority Law, "were public figures with an appropriate cultural background, experience and knowledge in their fields of expertise, and experience and understanding of the social situation in Israel" (section 7(b) of the law).  The Second Authority Law further instructs that "at the time of appointment, the composition of the Council shall reflect, to the extent possible, the diversity of opinions prevailing among the public" (section 7(c) of the Law).  In the meantime, section 9 of the Law establishes various restrictions for the appointment of a council member, including restrictions relating to his additional occupations, affiliations, personal competence, and the fear of a conflict of interest.
6. In accordance with Section 8 of the Law, the Council is appointed for a period of four years, but in order to maintain continuity, the outgoing Council continues to serve until the next Council is appointed. At the same time, Section 21 of the Law allows the Council to continue to operate and exercise its powers even where the number of its members has decreased, provided that the number of members has not been less than two-thirds - i.e., 10 members.  Accordingly, the vacancy of a council member's place, or a defect in his appointment or the continuation of his term, does not in itself harm the existence of the council, its powers or the validity of its decisions.
7. The candidacy of the members of the Council of the Second Authority is examined, prior to their appointment, by the Committee for the Examination of Appointments, which operates by virtue of Section 18B of the Government Companies Law, 5735-1975 (hereinafter: the Committee for the Examination of Appointments or the Committee and the Government Companies Law, respectively). This is given that the Second Authority is a corporation established by law, and therefore the Government Companies Law applies to the appointment of council members by means of section 60A(a) of the Government Companies Law.

Appointments Review Committee

8. The Committee for the Examination of Appointments is a central tool in combating the phenomenon of political and irrelevant appointments to senior positions in government companies and public bodies (High Court of Justice 5474/23 Israel Postal Company Ltd.   Minister of Communications, paragraph 26 of the judgment of Justice D.  Mintz, paragraph 49 of the judgment of Justice H.  Kabub (March 7,2024) (hereinafter: the Israel Post case); High Court of Justice 3905/16 Yosef v.  Minister of Finance, para.  13 (October 10,2016); High Court of Justice 6777/98 Rosenberg v.  Committee for the Examination of Appointments under the Government Companies Law, 5735-1975, IsrSC 52(5) 721,733-734 (1998) (hereinafter: the Rosenberg case)).  The committee examines the qualifications and suitability of candidates for the position of director, chairman of the board of directors or CEO of a government company, as detailed in section 18b of the Government Companies Law.
9. In this framework, the committee conducts an examinationin a number of levels. First, the committee examines whether the candidate meets the qualifications set out in the Government Companies Law, according to the position (section 16A of the Government Companies Law regarding a director; Section 24(c) of the Government Companies Law in the matter of the Chairman of the Board of Directors and Section 37(c) of the Government Companies Law in the matter of the Governing Companies.  In addition, the committee examines whether a candidate for the position meets a qualification that makes him unfit to serve (sections 17 and 17a of the Government Companies Law).  Thus, for example, section 17(a)(3) of the Government Companies Law instructs that a person is unfit to serve as a director in a situation of conflict of interest with his other occupations.  The committee is also examining whether the appointment is consistent with the commitment to represent both sexes and the Arab population, including the Druze and Circassian populations ( Sections 18A and 18A1 of the Government Companies Law).  In addition, if a candidate has a personal, business, or political affiliation with a government minister, the committee examines whether he possesses "special qualifications in the company's areas of activity, or whether there are considerations of other special qualifications" that justify recommending him for the position despite the aforementioned affiliation (section 18c(a) of the Government Companies Law).).  upon the committee's determination in this matter, that the appointing minister may submit an objection to the government ( sections 18(a), 24(d) and 37(d) of the Government Companies Law).  Beyond that, the committee examines additional requirements to the extent that they exist in the relevant law.  The committee also gives its opinion on the extent to which the candidate is suitable for the position.  This is done, inter alia, taking into account the special needs of the company, its size, the composition of the board of directors at the time of the appointment, and the candidate's ability to devote the appropriate time to the position ( section 18b(c)(3) of the Government Companies Law).
10. With regard to examining the qualifications of a candidate, the committee's authority is to approve or disqualify - its decision is a binding decision, as opposed to a recommendation (High Court of Justice 9351/17 Rishon LeZion Municipality v. Appointments Review Committee, para.  21 (July 23,2018)); AAA 9341/05 Freedom of Information Movement v.  Government Companies Authority, para.  12 (May 19,2009); Rosenberg, at p.  734).  On the other hand, in terms of suitability for the position, the committee's authority is mainly the authority to advise the ministers, as detailed in section 18b(c)(3) of the Government Companies Law (for more information, see: Mordechai Ben-Dror, "Appointment of Directors under the Government Companies Law, 5735-1975", Mishpat D 307,317-320 (5759)).  However, the Committee's recommendation was also given great weight, and in the absence of an administrative flaw in its opinion, special reasons and exceptional circumstances are required to justify a deviation from it (see, for example, in the High Court of Justice case 5657/09 The Movement for Quality Government in Israel v.  Government of Israel, para.  48 (November 24,2009) (hereinafter: the Jerbi case), which dealt with the work of the Appointments Committee of the Civil Service Commission (hereinafter: the Appointments Committee of the Civil Service Commission)).  Accordingly, and in order to enable the Appointments Review Committee to advise the appointing body as due, the appointing body must provide the committee with sufficient information regarding the candidate selected by it in advance.  This includes the proposal for the appointment of a candidate submitted to the committee together with a questionnaire filled out by the candidate, along with an affidavit signed by the candidate regarding the veracity and completeness of the information, as well as any additional information necessary for the committee to formulate its decision (see: Attorney General's Directive 6.5000 "Appointments in Government Companies and Public Corporations" 13 (June 2021) (hereinafter: Directive 6.5000)).
11. Directive 6.5000 establishes guidelines for exercising the power to appoint an officer to the position of a government company. The directive instructs, inter alia, that the responsibility for the veracity of the information regarding the candidate lies not only with the candidate himself, but also with the entity proposing his appointment.  In addition, the minister proposing the specific candidate is required to attach a letter signed by him, stating that he has drawn the candidate's attention to the fact that the questionnaire must fully and adequately reflect all relevant information relating to the matter.  Directive 6.5000 further clarifies that when they propose a candidate, the ministers act as public trustees and it is their duty to ensure that the candidates they propose are worthy of office (see: Directive 6.5000, at pp.  43-44).  Also relevant in this context is the Attorney General's Directive 1.1503 "Adequate Representation for Certain Sectors" (May 2020) (hereinafter: Directive 1.1503), which relates inter alia to the obligation of adequate representation in government companies.
12. We find that the provisions of the Second Authority Law regulate the activity of the Second Authority as a public corporation that supervises commercial broadcasting in Israel, and that the Council is responsible for setting rules, granting licenses, and supervising broadcasting bodies, including news companies. The appointment of Council members was made by the government, on the recommendation of the Minister, after an examination by the Appointments Committee, which was intended to examine their qualifications and suitability for the position, with the aim of preventing political and irrelevant appointments.  In light of the above, we will turn to examine the sequence of events underlying the petitions.

Factual Background to the Petitions

13. During the month of March 2026, the decisions of the government that is the subject of the petitions were made, in the framework of which it was decided to appoint the following candidates for council members (hereinafter: the "incoming" council): (1) Dr. Yifat Ben Hai-Segev, in whose case it was also decided that she would serve as chairperson of the council (hereinafter:   Ben Hai-Segev); (2) Adv. Kinneret Barashi (hereinafter: Adv. Barashi); (3) Mr. Aharon Bitan; (4) Dr.  Haim Shine (hereinafter: Dr.  Shine); (5) Ms. Odelia Friedman; (6) Mr. Oren Yirmiyahu; (7) Ms. Adi Arbel; (8) Ms. Yaarit Lobel; (9) Ms. Tzipora Halfon.

It was also decided to appoint the following six council members for an additional term: (10) D"R.  Dana Raviv (hereinafter: IV"R.  Raviv); (11) Mr. Amir Assi (hereinafter: Mr. Assi); (12) Mr. Yona (Yoni) Shimoni (hereinafter: Mr. Shimoni); (13) Prof.  Moshe Caspi (hereinafter: Prof.  Caspi); (14) Ms. Chen Kedem Maktovi (hereinafter: Ms. Kedem Maktovi) and (15) D"R.  Merlin Wenig (hereinafter: IV"R.  Wenig).  The six members of the council whose term was extended served on the council whose term was about to expire (hereinafter: Council "Outgoing").  As will be detailed below, this figure is of great significance to the petitions before us.