The High Court of Justice issued a conditional order (show cause order) on the communications law, citing procedural defects and problems with some of its provisions, according to Channel 12's Dafna Liel. The court consolidated several petitions, including those from MKs Efrat Rayten and Eitan Ginzburg, the Zulat Institute, and the Movement for Quality Government.
Sunday, 08:01 Jerusalem — Channel 12's Dafna Liel reports that the High Court of Justice has issued a conditional order (show cause order) in the consolidated petitions against the communications law, citing procedural defects in the legislative process and problems with the law's provisions. The court consolidated petitions from MKs Efrat Rayten (The Democrats) and Eitan Ginzburg (The Democrats), the Zulat Institute for Equality and Human Rights, and the Movement for Quality Government.
This development follows a series of court actions earlier this morning. At 07:46 Jerusalem, the High Court issued a conditional order on parts of the law with immediate effect, warning that the law would be "difficult to reverse" once implemented (as reported by N12's Daphna Liel). The court also issued a temporary order freezing the law's broadcast provisions, citing "heavy allegations" (Amit Segal, N12). The initial reports at 07:46 came from multiple outlets, with the court's reasoning evolving from a general temporary order to a specific conditional order citing procedural and substantive concerns.
The communications law, proposed by Communications Minister Shlomo Karai, has been a source of intense political controversy. As The Zioneer reported on July 16, the Zulat Institute filed a High Court petition arguing the law severely harms freedom of expression and press freedom. On July 13, MK Rayten presented reservations to the bill, calling it a "malignant evil." The court had previously issued a temporary order on Sunday, July 19 at 08:00 Jerusalem, delaying the broadcast provisions.
The conditional order represents a stronger legal step, signaling that the court sees merit in the petitions. The state must now respond within a timeframe set by the court. The law's implementation remains frozen pending the full hearing.
14 developments
Source and signal
- Internal intake