Following the petition of the Movement for Government Quality's petition against the non-convening of the Committee for the Selection of Judges, the High Court of Justice decided that the government and the Minister of Justice should consider the possibility of having a conditional order issued even before the hearing of the petitions against the non-convening of the Committee for the Selection of Judges.
Response from the Movement for Government Quality: "We welcome the court's decision, which suggests the possibility of issuing orders with conditions. The judicial system is waiting for new judges, but the Minister of Justice is doing everything in his power to avoid convening the committee and delaying the discussion. The legal stalling that is causing harm to the citizens of Israel must be stopped immediately."
A few days ago, the Chairman of the Constitution Committee, Member of Knesset Simcha Rothman, expressed on Channel 14 that "the Judicial Appointments Committee, in its current composition, has completed its path, and a court that lacks diversity is a problem that needs attention." Rothman referred to the seniority method practiced in the Supreme Court, where the new president appointed is the most senior among the judges.
Rothman argues that "the Judicial Appointments Committee that will convene should be the one to choose the President of the Supreme Court, and the people should have the ability to choose the judges, which they should do through their representatives in the Knesset."
As a reminder, a conditional order is an order issued by the High Court of Justice if it appears to the court that the petition submitted before it has merit. In a conditional order, the administrative authority is required to justify its actions or omissions against which the petition was filed. If the authority fails to provide a convincing rationale for its measures, the High Court of Justice will issue an absolute order, prohibiting the execution of these measures or instructing the authority to act in a certain way.
