The judicial ombudsman on Wednesday upheld complaints against Supreme Court President Isaac Amit and Justices Khaled Kabub and Yechiel Kasher over their handling of a wartime protest petition on Shabbat, finding that the panel wrongly issued substantive decisions during the Jewish day of rest.
Retired judge Asher Kula, the public complaints commissioner against judges, ruled that the complaints were justified regarding the timing of the decisions and the way the court managed the case from Friday into Saturday.
The decision did not address the substance of the High Court’s orders on the right to protest during wartime, but whether the court should have continued handling the petition on Shabbat.
The petition, filed by activist Itamar Greenberg and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, sought to require police and the Home Front Command to allow demonstrations during the war, particularly near protected spaces. It came after protests against the war were dispersed under Home Front Command gathering restrictions.
The High Court held an urgent hearing on Friday, April 3, during Passover recess, before demonstrations planned for Saturday night. At the end of the hearing, the state was asked to update the court by 11 a.m. Saturday, after Home Front Command inspected four protest sites.
On Saturday, Home Front Command said it would allow up to 150 protesters at Tel Aviv’s Habima Square, split between two locations, while leaving the general 50-person limit in place at the other requested sites.
Court issued new decisions on Shabbat
The court then issued decisions during Shabbat, including one directing the state to provide operational considerations, another ordering a new balance between security needs and freedom of protest, and a later interim order requiring police to allow gatherings of at least 600 people at Habima and at least 150 at the other sites.
The justices asked Kula to dismiss the complaints, arguing that the case involved “pikuach nefesh,” protection of life, or at least prevention of serious harm. They said the demonstrations were expected to take place regardless, while police, protesters, and Home Front Command required real-time guidance.
The panel also said it tried to avoid Shabbat proceedings by setting the hearing for Friday, and declined a request to hold a full hearing on Saturday, instead issuing limited decisions after telephone consultation.
Kula rejected that position.
He wrote that while courts may act on rest days in exceptional cases involving danger to life or irreparable serious harm, the circumstances here did not justify “intensive judicial activity” on Shabbat, including three substantive decisions.
He said the court should have set a clearer procedural framework before Shabbat, explained in real time why the case met the exceptional threshold, and sought alternatives that would have avoided violating Shabbat.
“The expectation from a panel of Supreme Court justices hearing a petition of this kind is that they wrap themselves both in their ‘Jewish robe’ and their ‘democratic robe,’” Kula wrote.
“The public expects the hearing to be conducted while protecting the foundational values of the State of Israel, with Shabbat as a guiding light and cornerstone of their conduct,” he added.
Kula emphasized that Shabbat’s special status is anchored in Basic Law: Israel, the Nation-State of the Jewish People, and has long been recognized in Supreme Court case law.
He also said that even if the Hours of Work and Rest Law does not directly apply to judges, it does apply to state employees and court staff affected by judicial orders requiring activity on Shabbat.
The commissioner found that the judges’ conduct harmed proper case management and public trust in the judiciary.