Background
The petition, filed on September 14, 2026, concerned legal representation allegedly provided by the Chief Military Defense Counsel beginning in October 2025, or at least from May 2026. The matter was initially assigned to Justice David Mintz as duty judge, but he transferred it to the next duty judge because he was unable to hear it. It was then assigned to Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit.
The petitioners sought President Amit’s recusal, alleging a history of public, personal, and legal antagonism between him and their counsel, attorney Zehava Gur. They cited complaints and planning proceedings that Gur had initiated concerning Amit, a statement made on his behalf describing her as apparently politically active in Likud, and her objection before the Judicial Selection Committee to his appointment as Supreme Court president. They argued that these circumstances, considered cumulatively, created an objective apprehension of bias and harmed the appearance of justice.
The Court’s Holding
President Amit denied the recusal application without requesting a response. He held that the petitioners had not established a “real apprehension of bias in the conduct of the proceedings,” the statutory standard under section 77A(a) of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version], 5744-1984. He emphasized that a judge’s authority to sit is also a duty: recusal requires objective grounds and cannot rest merely on criticism, complaints, threats, hostile publications, or opposition to a judge’s appointment.
The alleged prior incidents did not demonstrate personal antagonism or any prejudgment of Gur, the petitioners, or their arguments. They also had no substantive connection to the pending petition. Amit stated that Gur’s prior actions concerning him would not affect his judgment in this or any other case in which she appeared. He likewise rejected the complaint about the timing of his decision, explaining that the statute required resolution of the recusal request before further consideration of the proceeding, not on the day the request was filed.
Although the recusal motion was denied, Amit ordered further proceedings on the petition stayed for 14 days or until disposition of any appeal from the recusal decision, whichever occurred later.
Key Takeaways
- A lawyer’s complaints against a judge or opposition to the judge’s appointment do not automatically require recusal.
- Recusal requires objective circumstances establishing a real apprehension of bias; an unsupported appeal to the appearance of justice is insufficient.
- Criticism expressed in an unrelated proceeding ordinarily does not establish bias in the case presently before the judge.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Israel’s demanding, objective standard for judicial disqualification. It also reflects two institutional concerns: litigants should not be able to manufacture grounds for recusal through complaints or criticism, and judges are presumed capable of deciding cases professionally despite prior attacks or opposition from participating lawyers.
The ruling addressed only whether President Amit could continue hearing the petition. It did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute concerning legal representation.