Background
The petitioners sought to bar the Otzma Yehudit candidate list from participating in elections for the 26th Knesset. Alternatively, they sought to disqualify outgoing National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and outgoing Knesset member Tally Gotliv individually. They alleged that the grounds in Section 7A of Basic Law: The Knesset were satisfied, specifically denial of Israel’s existence as a Jewish and democratic state and incitement to racism.
The Central Elections Committee had voted 19–10 to permit the list to participate. An earlier request by the first petitioner to disqualify Ben-Gvir and Gotliv individually had been summarily dismissed by the Committee chair because it lacked the signatures of at least one-third of the Committee’s members, as required by Section 63A(a) of the Knesset Elections Law.
The petitioners acknowledged that they did not satisfy the statutory requirements governing applications and appeals, but argued that exceptionally extreme circumstances warranted exercise of the High Court of Justice’s residual constitutional jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed both parts of the petition without reaching the merits of the asserted Section 7A grounds. It explained that ordinary legislation cannot restrict the High Court’s jurisdiction under Basic Law: The Judiciary, but the statutory election-review scheme imposes an additional burden on litigants who bypass the prescribed appeal route. The petitioners failed to demonstrate a justification for doing so.
As to the list, the Elections Law limited an appeal from the Committee’s approval decision to designated actors, including the attorney general, the Committee chair, or at least one-third of the Committee’s members. Although the petitioners relied partly on the attorney general’s submissions concerning Ben-Gvir’s conduct and statements, they had not asked the attorney general—who possessed a statutory right of appeal—to pursue the matter.
As to Ben-Gvir and Gotliv individually, no disqualification application satisfying the statutory signature requirement had ever been placed before the Committee, and the chair therefore acted lawfully in striking the deficient request. The High Court also found significant delay: the petition was filed more than two weeks after the chair’s September 14, 2026 decision, despite the compressed timetable governing approval of candidates and lists.
Key Takeaways
- The ruling was procedural and did not decide whether Otzma Yehudit, Ben-Gvir, or Gotliv satisfied any substantive disqualification ground under Section 7A of Basic Law: The Knesset.
- A request to disqualify an individual Knesset candidate must bear the signatures of at least one-third of the Central Elections Committee’s members.
- Although the High Court retains constitutional jurisdiction, parties bypassing the Elections Law’s limited appeal mechanism must show special justification, and election challenges must be brought promptly.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the tightly controlled procedures and accelerated deadlines governing Israeli election-disqualification litigation. The High Court preserved its residual jurisdiction while signaling that it will not ordinarily use that jurisdiction to circumvent statutory standing, signature, and appeal requirements.
For election litigants, the judgment underscores that serious constitutional allegations do not excuse failure to invoke the prescribed process, approach an authorized appellant, or seek judicial relief immediately.