President of the State Isaac Herzog this evening (Sunday) criticized the government’s decision not to comply with a High Court of Justice ruling regarding the Second Authority for Television and Radio.
“Statements about non-compliance with rulings of the Supreme Court harm the core of national unity. I have already made this clear, and I will repeat it again and again - non-compliance with a court ruling is a red line that must not be crossed under any circumstances," Herzog wrote on X.
Earlier, the government unanimously approved a proposal by Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi and Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Minister Yariv Levin, according to which it will not recognize the actions of the Second Authority Council carried out under a High Court ruling, which it claims contradicts the law.
In the approved statement, it was written that “the rule of law in the State of Israel means that all branches of government are subject to the law," and that neither the government, the Knesset, nor the Supreme Court stands above the law.
It further stated that a judicial decision requiring a public authority to act contrary to the explicit wording of a law “is not an expression of the rule of law" and does not constitute legitimate judicial review.
The government referred to the High Court decision of June 17, which allowed the continued operation of the Second Authority Council even though the number of its serving members had fallen below the threshold set by law. It argued that this contradicts Section 21 of the Second Authority Law for Television and Radio.
It also stated that it would use “all legal means" at its disposal to work toward overturning the ruling, and that it would not in the future recognize claims seeking to validate actions taken by a council that, in its view, does not meet the statutory minimum requirements.
The statement emphasized that this is not a routine critique of a court ruling or a standard legal dispute, but a “extreme case" in which, according to the government, the wording of the law is clear and the court’s decision directly contradicts it.