'The obligation to obey and respect judgments is one of the basic conditions on which the rule of law in a democratic state is based. [...] Without obeying the rulings of the courts, the principle of the rule of law and justice is undermined, and the social order crumbles. A man will do what is right in his eyes, and the distance between the rule of law and anarchy is like a hair's breadth.
[...] Failure of a citizen to respect a court judgment is a serious manifestation of a violation of the rule of law. Even worse is the failure of an authority to respect a judgment by one of the government authorities. [...] A state in which a governmental authority takes the law into its own hands - willingly, upholds a judicial order issued against it, and willingly ignores it - is a state in which the seeds of calamity and anarchy are sown and a dangerous culture of power and arbitrariness develops in it (High Court of Justice 4805/07 The Center for Jewish Pluralism - The Movement for Progressive Judaism in Israel v. Ministry of Education, IsrSC 62(4) 571,602 (2008); see also the words of the Vice-President v. Sohlberg in the case of the High Court of Justice 18225-06-25 Gilon v. Government of Israel, paragraph 3 (August 10,2025)).
These basic principles are relevant both in relation to the actions of elected officials and in relation to the actions of public servants, all of whom are required to act in accordance with the provisions of the law. In the case of the latter, it is not superfluous to note that the action of public servants in contravention of judicial decisions is liable to lead, in appropriate cases, to the fact that the arrangement of personal immunity granted against tort claims will not apply (section 7A of the Torts Ordinance [New Version])."
The sequence of events that are the subject of our discussion was unusual and included unusual events and developments, which we will not be familiar with in our districts. Since we have curried this development, the time has come to rule on the petitions before us.
Discussion and Decision
- We have come a long way in the path of the extensive factual and legal framework that was laid out in the petitions before us. Now that the presentation of the matter has been completed, it is possible to turn to a decision on the arguments on their merits.
The focus of the petitions before us, As already mentioned, Standing Committee on Government Decisions Regarding the Appointment of the Council "Incoming". However, decisions The government is the last link in the chain of administrative procedure outlined by the Second Authority Law for the appointment of council members. It begins with the consultation held by the Minister of Communications and the identification of candidates; Continue to formulate the list of candidates and examine their eligibility and suitability by the Appointments Review Committee; And only afterwards does the minister submit to the government a proposal for the appointment of the council. The end of the process is the government's decision on the appointment of council members and the appointment of the chairman from among them.
- I will preface the beginning by noting that I have reached the conclusion that in the circumstances of the present case, the government's decisions should be annulled, as well as that the matter of all the members of the "incoming" council be returned to the examination of the committee for examining appointments, insofar as the Minister of Communications wishes to promote the appointment of these candidates. The re-examination of the committee will be carried out subject to any law and will be conducted on the basis of the current factual basis that will be brought before it.
I reached this conclusion against the background of a series of flaws in the committee's decision and in the government's decisions. In summary, from the material presented to us, it appears that many of the materials relevant to the examination of his candidacy"4 in my head and 4"R. Shine was not placed before the committee in advance, and therefore the government's decisions lack a factual basis, and the committee must reconsider their candidacy. As to the appointment of D."R. Ben-Hai-Segev, the defect in her case lies in the participation of the Prime Minister in the appointment process, contrary to the conflict of interest arrangement that binds it, and in the circumstances of the case, the government's decision to re-vote cannot cure this defect. These defects are supplemented by the various developments that occurred as a result of the present proceeding, which have a direct impact on the composition of the Council "Incoming", including the resignation of D."R and Wad"R. Raviv of the Council "Outgoing" and"Incoming" as one. In these circumstances, and in the light of the provision of the section 7(c) of the law according to which At the time of the appointment of the Council that its composition should reflect, to the extent possible, the diversity of public opinion, and in view of the significant change that has taken place in the composition of the Council; and taking into account the determination of the Committee for the Examination of Appointments that its decisions will be valid for three months only, I have reached the conclusion that the matter of the Rule Council Members "Incoming" for a re-examination of the Committee for the Examination of Appointments.