Background
Three employees of the Muslim Waqf administration challenged police orders excluding them from the Temple Mount compound. The first two petitioners received four-month orders after the first petitioner repaired a door in the compound on May 7, 2026, at the second petitioner’s request. The police did not allege that either had committed previous violations.
The third petitioner, a photographer for the Waqf’s communications operation, received a six-month exclusion order based on current intelligence that the Court reviewed ex parte with the parties’ consent. The petition, filed on June 22, 2026, alleged both defects in the petitioners’ opportunity to be heard and substantive flaws in the exclusion decisions.
The Court’s Holding
Following comments from the Court, the police accepted its recommendation that the roughly three months already served by the first two petitioners were sufficient. Their exclusion orders therefore expired on August 6, 2026.
As to the third petitioner, the Court identified a procedural difficulty because he had received no summary of the intelligence against him. During the hearing, the police supplied a summary alleging that he had previously worked for the outlawed Al-Qastal website, described as associated with Hamas’s public-information apparatus, and that current information indicated he documented Jewish groups at the Temple Mount and distributed the material through media and social networks to inflame tensions surrounding Jewish visits, potentially disturbing public order.
The parties agreed that the police would promptly issue the third petitioner a proper hearing notice containing that summary and permit him to present all his arguments, including objections to the summary and to the restriction’s scope in light of his business location. His exclusion order remained effective meanwhile, and both sides preserved their arguments concerning the ensuing decision. On that basis, the Court struck the petition without costs and did not adjudicate the parties’ remaining claims.
Key Takeaways
- A proper administrative hearing must give the affected person enough information to respond effectively to the particular allegations.
- A hearing notice should briefly identify the relevant matter, such as the date and place of an alleged violation or an appropriate summary of confidential intelligence.
- Notices must use clear language, including when issued in Arabic; standardized notices that omit individualized allegations may be inadequate.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that reliance on confidential security intelligence does not eliminate the obligation to provide an affected person with a meaningful opportunity to be heard. At minimum, the notice should contain a usable summary that permits an effective response, subject to legitimate confidentiality constraints.
Although the Court did not finally decide the legality of any exclusion order, the proceeding produced immediate relief for two petitioners and a renewed, more particularized hearing for the third. It also directed the police to learn broader procedural lessons from the deficiencies alleged in their standardized and Arabic-language notices.