In view of the above, the Attorney General is of the opinion that the Prime Minister's involvement constitutes a flaw in the government's decision-making, and that the fact that the decision was made by the government as a whole does not necessarily cure this flaw.  The Attorney General further adds that there is no need to address the petitioners' arguments regarding the government's overall impediment, since in her opinion there is room in any case to order the nullity of the government's decisions and to return the matter for further discussion in the committee.

57. Moreover, the advisor notes that the composition of the council raises legal difficulties in terms of adequate representation for the Arab population. According to her, the duty of proper representation, as interpreted in Directive1.1503, requires the minister to take active action to locate suitable candidates, and the government must ensure, before approving the appointments, that a sufficient examination has been conducted in this regard.  In practice, the composition of the 15-member council included only one member from the Arab population.  Despite this, the committee determined that the composition met the requirement of adequate representation.  The advisor finds it difficult to accept this determination, since the committee did not demand that the minister take action to locate additional candidates.  According to her, the lack of representation may also affect the Council's compliance with the diversity requirement in section 7(c) of the Law.

Responses of Additional Respondents and the Granting of an Order Nisi in the Petitions

58. News 13 submitted a concise response, noting that Reshet has been in a cash flow deficit that has been burdening the activities of News 13 for a long time, and that in order to enable the continued broadcasting and ongoing activity of News 13 and Reshet, the latter needs a constant flow of funds on a substantial scale. Against this background, an investment agreement was signed in March 2026 between Reshet and Merritt Spain Foundation (hereinafter: Merit).  In accordance with the agreement, Merit undertook to inject funds into the network in exchange for the acquisition of its control.  In the meantime, in order to enable Reshet's activity in the interim period until regulatory approvals are received to complete the transaction in full, Merit is providing the chain with interim financing in the amount of tens of millions of shekels.

Channel 13 News also notes that on March 25,2026, Reshet submitted a request to the Council for approval of the acquisition transaction, in which Reshet clarified that the transaction meets all the requirements of the law and the license.  Reshet also submitted to the Second Authority complete details and documents, and discussions were held with the Authority in order to complete the processing of the application.  However, in light of the course of events regarding the appointment of the Council and the petitions in question, it was not possible to bring the transaction to the Council's approval.  In this regard, Channel 13 News emphasizes that "Sleep Critical Importance For the approval of the transaction by the Council In the immediate term" [Emphasis in original] - J"and that there is also public importance to the completion of the transaction.  Therefore, it was argued that there is no reason for the proceeding in question to prevent the Council from approving the transaction and thwart - Even if not intentionally - The transaction of the purchase of a chain.

59. A response was also submitted on behalf of the Council of the Second Authority, in its institutional capacity as a statutory corporation (and not on behalf of the members of the "incoming" Council , who are represented separately). In its response, the Council emphasizes that it is not involved in the process of appointing its members and that it does not take a position regarding the manner of their appointment or their suitability to serve in it.  In addition, the Council clarifies that it is committed, first and foremost, to the public interest that it represents.  The Council also points to the "urgent" need to decide the petitions on their merits.
60. Subsequently, in our decision of May 15,2026, we ordered the extension of the temporary order granted in the proceeding. On this issue, it was argued before us that the chairman of the "incoming" council, Dr.  Ben Hai-Segev, notified the law firms with which the Second Authority for the Provision of Legal Services had contracted to terminate the engagement with them within 45 days from the date of the notification.  It was also claimed that the chairman of the "incoming" council had announced the appointment of an acting director of the authority, even though he was not a civil servant and without this appointment being brought for preliminary examination.  Accordingly, we ordered a freeze on the decisions of the government and the decisions of the "incoming" council that resulted from them, except for the matter of representing the "incoming" council in the proceeding.  We also clarified that at this stage, the "outgoing" council will be prohibited from making any new substantive decision.  At the same time, at the request of the government, the date for submitting its response to the petitions was postponed.
61. Subsequently, an additional request for postponement was filed on behalf of the government. However, after the government refrained from submitting its response even on the postponed date, and did not even file any request for an extension, on May 27,2026, orders nisi were granted as requested in the petitions.  In the meantime, the parties were asked to address what was stated in the response of Channel 13 News, given the prohibition imposed on the "outgoing" council from making new substantive decisions.

Affidavit of reply on behalf of the government

62. The government is of the opinion that the petitions should be rejected, and that the decisionswere made lawfully, after lengthy preparatory work and several rounds of consultation by the minister. In this context, the government emphasizes that initially the Minister of Communications approached dozens of bodies with a request to propose candidates.  After examining the proposals, the Minister formulated a list of 33 potential candidates for membership in the Council, and resumed consulting with the bodies in relation to it.  Subsequently, additional rounds of consultations were held regarding additional candidates.  The government indicates that the list of candidates was also examined by the legal advisor to the Ministry of Communications, and was then transferred to a committee to examine appointments.  In the meantime, the committee's decision determined that the minister held substantive and broad consultations.  In this regard, the Government argues that there is no basis for the claim that the Minister of Communications should have placed before it all the correspondence with the advisory bodies.  In its opinion, it is sufficient thatthe Minister brought before it the proposal that he formulated following the consultation process.
63. As for the claim that its decisions were based on a lack of infrastructure, the government notes that the decision makers' proposal was accompanied by a legal opinion dated March 18,2026, on behalf of the legal advisor to the Ministry of Communications, which reviewed the decisions of the committee to examine appointments as well as its position regarding the proposed composition of the council. In this context, the government also emphasizes that the legal advisor to the Ministry of Communications was aware of the inquiries of the Journalists' Association and Channel 12 News, as these were also addressed to her.  The only issue that required completion in the said opinion, the government claims, relates to the reference to the petition that was pending at the time, on behalf of Ms. Kamal against the committee's decision to reject her candidacy (High Court of Justice 84959-02-26 Kamal v.  State of Israel, Committee for the Examination of Appointments under the Government Companies Law, 5735-1975 - for the sake of completeness, it should be noted that this petition was deleted on April 14,2026).  The government further argues that since the relevant correspondence between the legal counsel and the committee was not attached to the Attorney General's response, the general statement in the Attorney General's response that various arguments were not presented to the Committee or were not examined by it should not be accepted.  With regard to the specific basis that the Government had in relation to the candidacy of Dr.  Ben Hai-Segev, the Government claims that most of the arguments in her matter were brought before the Committee in a letter from the Journalists' Association to the Committee dated January 1,2026.  The letter detailed, inter alia, the Journalists' Association's claims regarding the defamation lawsuit and her being a witness in the Prime Minister's trial.  According to the government, the fact that the Committee did not address these allegations does not indicate that they did not exist before it.  As for Adv. Barashi and Dr.  Shine, it was argued that the statements attributed to them were an expression of political positions and legitimate public criticism, and therefore did not constitute material information that should have been brought before the committee for the purpose of examining their appointments.
64. When it comes to examining allegations of conflict of interest and impartiality, the government first emphasizes the variety of roles played by the council. According to the council, in addition to quasi-judicial supervisory and enforcement powers, the council is also engaged in setting rules, policy, and exercising executive powers.  Therefore, the claim of bias must be examined in light of the nature of the power exercised - executive or quasi-judicial.  The government also distinguishes between a conflict of interest - which stems from the existence of a personal, professional or institutional interest that competes with the public interest - and bias, which concerns a prejudice in relation to one of the parties that preventsthe exercise of open and substantive judgment.  According to it, the expression of a prior position or general criticism, in and of themselves, does not indicate bias.  This is especially true when the Council is engaged in setting policy.  On the other hand, in the exercise of quasi-judicial power, in order to prove impartiality, it is necessary to show that the opinion of the council member is locked in relation to a concrete decision.  But even if such a lock-of-mouth is proven, the government argues, it may justify a specific impediment, and not disqualification from serving on the council.
65. As for the claims in the matter of Dr. Ben-Hai-Segev, the government is of the opinion that they do not constitute a conflict of interest on its part or a real fear of bias.  According to her, her tenure on the board of directors of Channel 13 News was on behalf of the Second Authority and was intended to promote the public interest, and therefore she has no special connection to Channel 13.  In any event, the Committee for the Examination of Appointments considered this figure and was of the opinion that a three-month cooling-off period should be set for Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev.  The government is also of the opinion that the alleged dispute between Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev and Channel 12 News in relation to the Knesset Channel tender does not indicate hostility towards Channel 12, since Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev's decisions in this matter were professional.  The government further argues that accepting the claim of impartiality stemming from the determinations of the tenders committee entails many broad ramifications.  The government adds that the defamation suit does not attest to resentment or revenge, and that the judgment in its case even determined that the lawsuit was filed out of a desire to protect its good name.

With regard to the prime minister's involvement in the appointment, the government argues that his conflict of interest arrangement does not prevent him from dealing with D."R.  Ben-Hai-Segev after she finished testifying at his trial.  According to her, the purpose of the arrangement is to prevent a fear of influencing future testimony, and it does not establish a permanent preclude.  In any event, the government emphasizes that the prime minister was not involved in the formulation of the list of candidates and the preparation of the proposal, and did not even express a position in the discussion other than his participation in the unanimous vote.  One way or another, the government is of the opinion that every possible flaw was corrected in any case in the government's decision to re-vote, which was made without the prime minister's involvement.

66. In the case of Adv. Barashi and Dr. Shine, the government argues that their statements attest to their political views and express general criticism of the media.  Subsequently, it is argued that the various statements do not establish any prejudice regarding the issues before the Council as a quasi-judicial body, or as an enforcement body.  In this context, the government refers to an American ruling according to which a regulator should not be disqualified solely because of a prior position or public statement.  The government adds that the inclusion of those with critical views in the council is consistent with the obligation to reflect the variety of opinions prevailing in the composition.  In summary of this issue, the government emphasizes that if there is a conflict of interest or bias of some kind with respect to any of the candidates, this does not mean that the appointment should be canceled, but at most, an appropriate arrangement must be established to prevent the conflict of interest.  As to the alleged political affiliation, the government is of the opinion that public support for the prime minister or the government does not in itself create a political affiliation with one of the government ministers.  In her view, political affiliation in the light of the Government Companies Law focuses on intra-party activity that enables a candidate to influence the minister's chances of being elected - for example, serving in a small institution that selects candidates, collecting donations, organizing conferences, and events in support of certain ministers.  These conditions, the government clarifies, are not met by the candidates at the center of the petitions.

Finally, the government maintains that there was no A flaw in the composition of the council due to the underrepresentation of the Arab population.  According to her, , The duty of proper representation is not a consequential dutyRather, it is an obligation to try to locate suitable candidates.  In this context, the government notes that the minister acted to locate suitable candidates, and considered the candidacy of five candidates from among the Arab population.  However, some of them did not meet the eligibility conditions, one of the candidates was disqualified by the committee, and in the case of another candidate, obstacles arose.  Therefore, it was argued that the appointment of only one representative from the Arab population does not indicate that a duty was breached in the circumstances of the case.

Affidavits of reply on behalf of Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev and the other members of the "incoming" council

67. Ben Hai-Segev and the other members of the "incoming" Council, with the exception of Dr.  Wenig (hereinafter: the members of the Council), are represented in the proceeding before us by the same counsel.  On their behalf, two separate affidavits of reply were submitted: one on behalf of Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev, and the other on behalf of the other members of the Council.  Naturally, similar arguments were raised in both affidavits.  The main points of the matter will be presented below.
68. Ben-Hai-Segev emphasizes that the government's decisions were made in accordance with the provisions of the Second Authority Law and the procedural requirements set forth therein.  According to her, great weight, and even decisive, should be attributed to the fact that the appointment of the "incoming" council was made by the competent body, after the obligation to consult had been fulfilled; on the basis of the opinion of the legal advisor to the Ministry of Communications; and after an in-depth examination of the committee.  It was further argued that in this state of affairs, where the authority party makes its decision following the consultation, the scope of judicial review of it is reduced.
69. On the merits of the allegations directed against her, regarding the Knesset Channel tender affair, Dr. Ben Hai-Segev relies on the judgment in the matter of the Knesset Channel, where it was determined that there was no defect in the conduct of the tenders committee that conducted the tender.  Regarding the allegations regarding the conflict of interest vis-à-vis Channel 13 News, Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev emphasizes that she served there as a director on behalf of the Authority, so that her duty of loyalty was to the public.  In this regard, Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev emphasizes that the attempt to turn any disagreement that arose during her tenure with the Workers' Committee at Channel 13 News into a defect that disqualifies her candidacy is unfounded.  She further notes that in response to the committee's inquiries, an orderly response was sent on its behalf, to which an opinion was also attached by Prof.  Yaad Rotem, which rejected the claim of conflict of interest.

With respect to a defamation lawsuit, 4"R.  Ben Hai-Segev Emphasizes thatThe lawsuit ended, and she even decided not to appeal the judgment and to leave the matter behind.  She notes that the court recognized that the publications damaged her good name and ruled that the lawsuit was filed in good faith, Although the defendants enjoyed the protections of the law.  According to her, , In fact, filing a lawsuit against a media entity does not give it the opportunity to prevent its appointment as a regulator, since a supervised entity should not be allowed to indirectly control the identity of the supervisors.  In any case, D emphasizes"R.  Ben Hai-Segev, the Committee for the Examination of Appointments was aware of the defamation lawsuit and did not believe that it could influence its conclusion.  IV"R.  Ben-Hai-Segev also rejects the claims regarding her joining the research institute "The Establishment of the Land"But for the sake of good order, she announces the suspension of her involvement in the Institute.

70. As for her testimony at the Prime Minister's trial, Dr. Ben-Hai-Segev argues that the mere fact that she is a witness does not create a political affiliation or impair her competence.  Her testimony ended in 2022, and judicial findings have not yet been made regarding her credibility or the significance of the alleged discrepancies between her versions.  With regard to the allegations regarding the Prime Minister's conflict of interest, Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev is of the opinion that in light of the government's decision to re-vote, the ground under this argument is dropped.  In any event, it was argued that from the moment she finished her testimony, there was no longer a conflict of interest.  In addition, Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev is of the opinion that the assumption that government ministers necessarily serve as the prime minister's long arm was rejected by this court in the proceeding relating to the appointment of the head of the General Security Service (High Court of Justice 18133-06-25 Guili v.  Deputy Attorney General (Public-Administrative Law) (July 15,2025)).  Finally, Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev believes that great weight should be given to the fact that the government's decisions are the result of an orderly administrative process, and were made in accordance with the recommendations of the advisory bodies.
71. As noted, the members of the Council join Dr. Ben-Hai-Segev's arguments and emphasize that the Committee for the Examination of Appointments examined their candidacy in depth and thoroughly.  As for the previous statements made by some of them, it was argued that the petitions embody an attempt to harm the freedom of expression of citizens.  According to them, accepting the arguments on the matter is liable to create a chilling effect among those who wish to serve in public office.  They also claim that the prime minister's participation in the government's decision was not tainted by a conflict of interest, and that there was no other flaw in the process of making the government's decisions.

The resignation of the "outgoing" council members and their statements regarding the background to their resignation

72. As may be recalled, on May 27,2026, the parties were asked to address what was stated in the response of Channel 13 News, in view of the prohibition imposed on the "outgoing" council at the time, to make any new substantive decision. Shortly after our decision, and in accordance with the information provided in the notices that were submitted, a wave of resignations by members of the "outgoing" council, in which seven members of the council resigned one after the other, began in a series of letters whose wording is very similar to each other, as will be detailed below.
73. Thus, on May 29,2026 - only two days after our aforementioned decision - the "outgoing" council member , Dr. Odelia Mines, informed the minister of her resignation.  In her letter, Dr.  Means detailed that she had just completed two terms as a council member, and that she preferred not to continue for another term because she had other commitments and occupations, as well as because she felt exhausted in her position.
74. Two days later, on May 31,2026, Mr. Assi also informed the Minister of his resignation from his position on the "outgoing" council. However, in his statement, Mr. Assi emphasized that "for the avoidance of doubt, it should be clarified that the aforesaid does not constitute a resignation, waiver or withdrawal from my future appointment as a member of the new council [ the "incoming" council [...] This is after the legal impediment to its convening has been lifted."
75. The next day, on June 1,2026, Dr. Raviv also notified the Minister of her resignation.  In her statement, she discussed the circumstances created as a result of the proceedings in question: on the one hand, an "incoming" council that was frozen, and on the other hand, an "outgoing" council whose powers had been emptied.  Accordingly, Dr.  Raviv announced that she saw no point or benefit in remaining as a council member - neither in the "outgoing" council nor in the "incoming" council.
76. In the morning hours of the same day, Dr. Wenig also announced her resignation from her position on the "outgoing" council.  In her letter, Dr.  Wenig noted, among other things, the following:

"As someone who greatly appreciates the work of Mordechai [the chairman of the outgoing council ], I refrained from resigning from the outgoing council, as did some of the members who faced a similar dilemma.  Now, following last night's meeting [...] I feel great discomfort.  Especially when during the meeting one of the outgoing council members wrote me messages along the lines of 'you are not ashamed', 'disgraceful', 'doing the word of gentlemen, ' and these are just some of the quotes.