MK Elharrar: High Court must order timeframe for voting on judicial appointments

By Jeremy Sharon

You will receive email alerts from this author. Manage alert preferences on your profile page

You will no longer receive email alerts from this author. Manage alert preferences on your profile page

3 May 2026, 11:59 am

1 Edit

Jeremy Sharon is The Times of Israel’s legal affairs and settlements reporter

Yesh Atid MK Karine Elharrar at a High Court hearing on a petition requesting the convening of the Judicial Selection Committee, May 3, 2026. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

Yesh Atid MK Karine Elharrar, a member of the Judicial Selection Committee, calls on the High Court of Justice not just to order Justice Minister Yariv Levin to convene the Judicial Selection Committee in short order, but also to order him to actually hold a vote.

Her comments come following a hearing in the High Court in which Levin’s legal representative repeatedly claimed that it was extremely difficult for the minister to devise not only a timetable for making dozens of sorely needed appointments, but a timeframe for issuing such a timetable.

“The story is that the justice minister does not have a majority on the committee and so he is doing everything he can not to convene the committee,” charges Elharrar.

According to the opposition MK, Levin is demanding that all nine members of the committee agree to the appointments of all candidates before publishing the candidates’ names in the state gazette, as is required 45 days before the Judicial Selection Committee can vote on them.

“He has invented a principle in contravention of the law that you need full agreement [among all committee members to make appointments]. That’s not true. You need a majority on the committee,” Elharrar continues, charging that because Levin cannot get the support of a majority of the committee for his candidates, he is refusing to convene the panel.

“The court needs to give a timeframe not just for convening the committee but also for a vote,” the MK demands, pointing to Levin’s efforts to delay appointing a Supreme Court president even after being ordered by the court to convene the committee for that purpose in January last year.

The hearing on the issue ends with Levin’s attorney, Zion Amir, continuing to refuse to give a timetable for Levin to publish the names of candidates in the state gazette and to convene the committee, despite the urging of the judges. It remains to be seen if the court will order Levin to commit to a timetable for the appointments process, or instead issue a final ruling on the matter.