Background
Six individual petitioners and two women’s organizations petitioned the High Court of Justice against the Knesset, the Israeli government, the Minister of Religious Services, the Chief Rabbinate and its council, the two chief rabbis, and the Attorney General.
The petition concerns section 7(8) of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel Law, 5740-1980, as amended by Amendment No. 8 of 2024. The petitioners sought an interpretation requiring the chief rabbis to appoint both men and women as their representatives to the electoral assembly or, alternatively, invalidation of section 1 of the amendment.
The Court’s Holding
Following a hearing on September 14, 2026, Justices Ofer Grosskopf, Gila Canfy-Steinitz, and Khaled Kabub issued an order nisi directing all respondents to appear and show cause why section 7(8), as amended, should not be read to require the chief rabbis to appoint both men and women as representatives to the electoral assembly.
Alternatively, the respondents must show cause why section 1 of Amendment No. 8 should not be declared void. The Court directed the respondents to submit answering affidavits by December 15, 2026. This was an interlocutory show-cause order; the Court did not decide the merits, adopt the requested interpretation, or invalidate the amendment.
Key Takeaways
- The order is directed to all respondents, not only the government.
- The respondents must address both proposed remedies: a gender-inclusive interpretation of section 7(8) and, alternatively, invalidation of section 1 of Amendment No. 8.
- No final ruling has been issued on statutory interpretation, gender representation, or the amendment’s validity.
Why It Matters
The order moves the petition into substantive review and requires the respondents to justify the challenged appointment framework. The eventual decision may determine whether the chief rabbis’ statutory appointment power must include representatives of both sexes.
It may also clarify whether the disputed provision can be construed consistently with that requirement or whether the relevant part of the 2024 amendment must instead be struck down.