The High Court on Sunday ruled that Justice Minister Yariv Levin must convene the Judicial Selection Committee for the purpose of selecting judges for the district courts, while giving priority to the district courts in Be'er Sheva and Haifa.
The decision was unanimously adopted by the three justices, Ofer Grosskopf, Alex Stein, and Gila Kanfi Steinitz.
Levin has refused to convene the committee for approximately a year and a half due to a lack of a broad consensus on candidate selection, leading to a severe shortage of judges across "all tiers of the judicial branch," the High Court ruled.
According to the High Court, the shortage "has severely impacted the court system's ability to ensure the law is enforced and to provide a high-quality, efficient service to the general public."
"The court clarified that while the Minister is not obligated at this time to convene the committee for the purpose of filling the vacant seats on the Supreme Court, given the special legal arrangement regarding judicial appointments to this specific bench, there is significant difficulty in the fact that this bench has been operating with a partial roster for nearly three years," it said.
Partial roster leading to 'severe harm to court's ability to fulfill duties'
Operating with a partial roster, combined with an increase in the number of proceedings handled by the High Court, has caused "severe harm to the court's ability to properly fulfill the duties imposed upon it."
The ruling further noted that because of this, "the Justice Minister and the other members of the committee would do well to make an additional effort to reach understandings that will allow the four vacant seats on the Supreme Court to be filled."
Levin, in response, said in a statement that the decision is "patently illegal," and that the "judicial branch is taking over the Judicial Selection Committee, in express violation of the provisions of the law."
"If any of the judges wish to manage the Judicial Selection Committee and determine its meeting dates, they are welcome to shed their judicial robes, run for the Knesset, try to get elected, and demand the portfolio of the Justice Ministry during coalition negotiations," Levin added.
"Three judges have, with their own hands, manufactured an unprecedented constitutional crisis, and the responsibility rests entirely at their doorstep."
Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara also fiercely criticized Levin's conduct, concluding that Levin's refusal to cooperate with Supreme Court President Isaac Amit harms the functioning of the courts and the service provided to the public.
In the primary arguments submitted to the High Court, it was claimed that Levin had refrained for a long period from advancing a series of appointments within the judicial system, including presidents and vice presidents for the courts, senior judges, and a registrar for the court, largely because he is unwilling to sign documents that require cooperation with Amit.
Baharav-Miara's response stated that "a policy of non-cooperation by the Justice Minister with the President of the Supreme Court lacks a legal basis, runs counter to proper governance, and violates the fundamental rules of administrative law."
'A subversion of Israel's democratic foundations'
The Chair of the Democrats Faction, MK Efrat Rayten, stated that "the court is providing relief to the citizens, while Yariv Levin is harming them. The Justice Minister is abandoning the citizens of Israel and paralyzing the system."
"If he does not uphold the High Court's ruling, it will be a subversion of Israel's democratic foundations—and action must be taken against him to the full extent of the law," Rayten added.
The Movement for Quality Government in Israel characterized the verdict as "a total victory for the rule of law" and "a resounding slap in the face for Justice Minister Yariv Levin."
According to the organization, the court ruled unequivocally that "the Minister is forbidden from continuing to abandon the judicial system."
The movement declared that it will "closely monitor" the Minister's adherence to the set timetable, adding, "if he chooses to continue evading it, we will return to court."
"The rule of law has proven that it is stronger than Yariv Levin," it concluded.