Background
Four petitioners challenged orders issued by the Jerusalem District Police Commander excluding them from the Temple Mount for violating the site’s visitation rules. Petitioners 1 through 3 had bowed in prohibited areas, while petitioner 4 had put on tefillin on the Mount. The petition sought cancellation of the individual exclusion orders and broader relief requiring the police to publish all rules governing visits, refrain from enforcing unpublished rules, review every exclusion order weekly, and provide a lawful and fair hearing before excluding anyone.
The petition also requested interim permission for petitioner 1 to visit the Temple Mount on his wedding day despite an exclusion order effective until October 9, 2026. Petitioner 2 was later removed from the case at his request after his order expired during the proceedings. The remaining petitioners argued that the visitation restrictions and resulting exclusions were unlawful and that hearings had been scheduled too quickly to permit adequate preparation, legal advice, and review of the evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously dismissed the petition at the threshold. It held that the petitioners had not exhausted administrative remedies regarding their general requests because their prior communications with the police focused on their individual orders and hearings, rather than presenting the broader claims and requested systemic relief. The Court also criticized the joinder of challenges to four separate decisions involving different circumstances, dates, and grounds, which hindered effective judicial review and created time pressure largely attributable to the petitioners.
On the individual claims, the Court found no basis to intervene. Israeli law authorizes the police to regulate public order at the Temple Mount and restrict access where there is a substantial risk of serious harm to public peace or security. The applicable Jerusalem District procedure limits exclusion periods, specifies relevant considerations, and requires an opportunity to be heard. Rules governing worship at the site and individual exclusions for violations fall at the core of executive discretion concerning domestic policy, foreign affairs, and security, where judicial intervention is especially limited.
The hearing process was also adequate. Although the petitioners received short notice, the police reasonably explained that prompt hearings protect both public safety and the excluded person’s access rights by quickly determining whether an immediate exclusion should become a longer-term order. All petitioners were invited to hearings but did not attend. Written hearings were ultimately allowed for petitioners 1 and 2; petitioner 3 received four postponements and an unused opportunity to submit written arguments; and petitioner 4 neither requested a postponement nor appeared. The Court therefore found no procedural defect warranting cancellation of the orders.
Key Takeaways
- A petitioner must present the relevant claims and requested relief to the administrative authority before seeking High Court review; general correspondence on a related subject is insufficient.
- Separate exclusion decisions involving different facts, dates, and reasons ordinarily should not be combined merely because they raise a similar general issue.
- The police have broad authority to regulate Temple Mount access and worship-related conduct to protect public order and security, subject to the governing procedure and an opportunity to be heard.
- Promptly scheduled hearings are not inherently unfair where postponements, access to materials, or written submissions are available on request.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces both the procedural barriers to systemic administrative challenges and the substantial deference afforded to police judgments concerning public order and security at the Temple Mount. Litigants seeking broader reforms must first give the police a meaningful opportunity to address the precise claims and remedies later presented in court.
The Court ordered petitioners 1, 3, and 4 to pay the respondents a total of NIS 3,000 in equal shares, citing numerous procedurally unsupported filings and, in some instances, intemperate language.