Recently, the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, passed a crucial provision of a comprehensive judicial reform bill aimed at limiting the authority of the Supreme Court. Known as the “reasonableness bill,” this reform intends to curtail the Supreme Court’s ability to declare government decisions as unreasonable.
The Reasonableness Bill: Limiting the Supreme Court’s Authority
Under the new law, the Supreme Court’s powers have been restricted in using the legal standard of reasonableness to overrule decisions made by the national government. A decision will be deemed unreasonable if the court finds that it was made without considering all relevant factors or without giving appropriate weight to each factor. Additionally, decisions can be considered unreasonable if they involve giving undue weight to irrelevant factors. This change is significant as it alters the judicial review process and the court’s ability to strike down government decisions.
Israel’s Unique Legal Framework
Unlike many other countries, Israel lacks a formal constitution. Instead, the rights and freedoms of its people are enshrined in Basic Laws. The legal standard of reasonableness was previously employed by Israeli judges to invalidate decisions made by lawmakers and ministers. With this new measure, the government seeks to shift power from the judiciary to elected representatives, promoting what it believes is a more democratic approach.
Other Proposed Reforms
The reasonableness bill is just one component of a broader set of reforms envisioned by Netanyahu’s government. These reforms are aimed at reshaping the relationship between the three branches of government.
- Empowering the Parliament (Knesset): One major reform is to grant the 120-member Parliament the authority to override Supreme Court judgments with a simple majority of 61 votes, except in cases where the rulings are unanimous. This change seeks to enhance the legislature’s influence and reduce the judiciary’s power in overturning decisions made by elected representatives.
- Greater Role for Lawmakers in Judicial Appointments: The government also aims to alter the process of appointing Supreme Court judges. Presently, a committee comprising professionals, justices, and lawmakers plays a significant role in elevating judges to the top court. The proposed change would provide lawmakers with a majority in the committee, further empowering elected officials in the judicial selection process.
- Ministers Choosing Their Own Legal Advisors: Another proposed reform involves granting ministers the authority to select their own legal advisors instead of relying on independent professionals. This change could enhance the executive branch’s control over legal counsel, potentially aligning legal advice with the government’s policy objectives
Motives behind the Judicial Reforms
The push for these reforms stems from the perspective of conservatives and right-wing factions in Israel who have long viewed the judiciary as an obstacle to their legislative agenda. By curtailing the judiciary’s powers, the government contends that it will restore a proper balance between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.
Additionally, Netanyahu’s coalition government claims that the reforms will strengthen democracy by granting more power to elected representatives while minimizing the influence of what they perceive as interventionist judges.
