High Court of Justice Postpones Hearing on Committee for Appointment of Judges
The scheduled hearing on the petitions against the non-convening of the Committee for the Appointment of Judges has been postponed to a yet to be determined date between October 12 and 23. The High Court of Justice panel of judges that heard the petition made this decision following the demand of Justice Minister Yariv Levin to submit a new response to the order on condition given on Thursday.
The postponement allows Levin additional time in which he will not be able to convene the committee. However, it also has another meaning – the hearing may be scheduled after the retirement of one of the judges on the panel, Anat Baron, as well as the president of the Supreme Court, Esther Hayut.
Judges Anat Baron, David Mintz, and Yael Wilner rejected Levin’s claim that the order was issued without authority and in violation of the High Court of Justice regulations. They stated that, according to the Rules of Procedure in the High Court of Justice, the court has discretion on when to order the issuance of an order. They therefore granted the conditional order with authority and rejected the request to cancel it.
However, the judges did accept the demand of the Minister of Justice to allow him to re-respond to the conditional order. They stated that they can be satisfied with Levin’s preliminary response, but since he requested to submit a reply affidavit, the affidavit should be submitted by October 9, 2023. As a result, the hearing scheduled for next Tuesday will be canceled and a new hearing will be scheduled no later than October 23.
On Thursday, the judges issued a conditional order to Justice Minister Yariv Levin in response to petitions from the movement for the quality of government, the Yesh Atid party, and a group of businessmen, ordering him to explain why he refuses to convene the committee for the selection of judges. Levin claimed the order was issued without authority and requested to cancel it.
The order does not oblige Levin to convene the committee, but it indicates that there will likely be only one hearing on the petitions against non-convening. This is in contrast to a scenario where there might be a preliminary hearing on the mere issuance of the order, followed by a hearing on the petition for its res judicata.
In response, Justice Minister Levin filed an appeal to the High Court of Justice, asking to overturn the decision. He argued that the court does not have the authority to determine what will be written in the answering affidavit, thereby denying the respondents – namely himself and the government of Israel – the basic right to make their voices heard.
Levin submitted his answer to the High Court on the fourth, claiming that he has the sole authority to convene the committee and is acting in accordance with his duty. He also argued that interfering in his decisions and replacing his discretion with the court’s discretion would seriously damage the principle of separation of powers.