Background
The Supreme Court was preparing to hear four election-related proceedings concerning Sami Abu Shehadeh, Member of Knesset Ofer Cassif, the Joint List, and the United Arab List (Ra’am). The matters involved the Central Elections Committee for the 26th Knesset, political parties, candidates, the Attorney General, the Knesset, and other participants.
Before the October 1, 2026 hearing, the Court addressed how the consolidated proceedings would be conducted. The parties did not object to filming and broadcasting the hearing. Because detailed written submissions had already been filed before both the Supreme Court and the Central Elections Committee, the Court also prescribed separate oral-argument periods for each proceeding.
The Court’s Holding
Acting under section 70(b) of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version], 5744-1984, the nine-justice panel ordered that the October 1 hearing be filmed and broadcast live through the Government Press Office. It allocated argument time among the applicants or appellants, the Attorney General, the opposing parties, and brief replies, while permitting counsel for the Central Elections Committee to argue if necessary.
Applying the standards identified in Gilon v. Government of Israel, HCJ 18225-06-25 (Dec. 1, 2025), the Court found a substantiated concern that disruptions, disorder, or outbursts could materially impede the hearing’s proper conduct. It therefore limited physical attendance to attorneys, media representatives, authorized entrants, and no more than two representatives for each party. The Court concluded that the live broadcast adequately served the broader principle of open justice despite the attendance restriction.
Key Takeaways
- The order governed four consolidated election proceedings, not a single docket.
- The Supreme Court authorized live filming and broadcasting under section 70(b) of the Courts Law because the parties raised no objection.
- A substantiated risk of serious disruption justified restricting physical access while preserving public observation through the live broadcast.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how Israel’s Supreme Court may balance open justice against the need to maintain orderly proceedings in politically sensitive election cases. Public access need not always mean unrestricted physical admission when a live broadcast provides meaningful contemporaneous access.
It also shows the Court’s active case management in expedited election litigation: detailed written records allowed tightly allocated oral arguments across four related proceedings.