DistantNews
Support us
🇮🇱 Israel /Crime & Justice

Judicial Ombudsman: Supreme Court Justices Erred by Issuing Protest Rulings on Shabbat

From Jerusalem Post · () English

Translated from English and summarized by DistantNews. Read the original for the full story.

At a glance

News Named sources Context piece
  • Israel's judicial ombudsman ruled that Supreme Court justices erred by issuing substantive decisions on Shabbat regarding wartime protest petitions.
  • The ruling found that the court's handling of the case, including issuing decisions on the Jewish day of rest, was not justified by the circumstances.
  • The justices had argued that the case involved "pikuach nefesh" (saving a life) or preventing serious harm, but the ombudsman stated alternatives should have been sought to avoid violating Shabbat.

The Israeli judicial system is grappling with a significant ruling from its ombudsman, Asher Kula, who found that Supreme Court justices improperly issued substantive decisions on Shabbat concerning wartime protest petitions. This decision, while not challenging the court's orders on protest rights themselves, raises critical questions about the judiciary's adherence to religious observance during the Jewish day of rest.

The complaints were justified regarding the timing of the decisions and the way the court managed the case from Friday into Saturday.

· Asher KulaThe judicial ombudsman's conclusion on the justification of complaints against the Supreme Court justices.

Retired judge Kula upheld complaints against Supreme Court President Isaac Amit and Justices Khaled Kabub and Yechiel Kasher. The core of the ruling is that the justices' actions on Shabbat, including issuing multiple substantive decisions and requiring state updates by a specific time on Saturday, crossed the line. While the court argued that the case involved "pikuach nefesh"—the principle of prioritizing life-saving actions over Shabbat observance—Kula determined that the circumstances did not warrant such "intensive judicial activity."

This ruling highlights a recurring tension in Israeli society: the intersection of secular law, national security, and religious tradition. The justices' defense rested on the need for real-time guidance for police and the Home Front Command regarding demonstrations, suggesting that delaying decisions would have been more detrimental. However, Kula's decision implies that the court should have established clearer procedures before Shabbat or sought less intrusive alternatives to avoid violating the sanctity of the day.

pikuach nefesh

· Supreme Court JusticesThe justices' argument that the case involved saving a life or preventing serious harm, justifying Shabbat proceedings.

The case originated from a petition seeking to allow demonstrations during wartime, which had been restricted by the Home Front Command. The High Court's involvement on Shabbat aimed to balance security needs with freedom of protest, but the ombudsman's finding suggests that the method employed was inappropriate. This verdict will likely fuel ongoing debates about the role of religious law in public life and the judiciary's responsibility to uphold both civil liberties and religious customs.

intensive judicial activity

· Asher KulaThe ombudsman's description of the court's actions on Shabbat that he deemed unjustified.
About this summary

Originally published by Jerusalem Post in English. Translated, summarized, and contextualized automatically by DistantNews, with a note on how the source frames the story. Not individually reviewed before publishing. How this works.

More Stories

From Our Blog