Ahead of the hearing on the petitions against the "Incapacitation Law" that will be held next Thursday (09/28), the Legal Adviser to the Government publishes her opinion and states that the applicability of the law should be postponed only to the next Knesset, in order to avoid suspicion of personal use of the law.
The answer letter states that "a fundamental law cannot be used as a kind of private resource that removes personal problems from the field of morality and criminal law".
The Legal Adviser to the Government stated that by postponing the applicability, at least until the next Knesset, she claims that the arrangement will be given the opportunity to shape it from a "broad policing perspective, with a forward-looking view and behind a veil of vigilance".
Expanded composition under the leadership of Esther Hayut
As you may recall, after the previous discussion on the Incapacitation Law, in which Judges Hayut, Fogelman, and Amit participated, the Supreme Court announced that it had decided not to reject the petition, and the judges issued a 'conditional order' to the government in which it must explain why the law cannot apply only from the next Knesset.
In addition, it was decided that there would be another discussion on the law, and it would be held with an expanded composition of 11 judges.
The judges who will hear the petition are President Esther Hayut, Vice President Uzi Vogelman, Yitzhak Amit, Noam Sohlberg, Daphne Barak-Erez, Anat Baron, David Mintz, Yosef Elron, Yael Willner, Ofer Grosskopf, and Alex Stein.
During the initial hearing that took place in July regarding the petition calling for the repeal of the "Incapacitation Law" which was enacted as an amendment to the Basic Law - Government, Judge Uzi Vogelman argued that despite the criticisms, and the danger of canceling the authority of the Knesset, the High Court has the authority to cancel basic laws enacted by elected officials.
Vogelman claimed: "Legal positivism is not like that. There is a doctrine of abuse of authority. There is another doctrine, the Sir says it as he is speaking in a vacuum, but there is no vacuum. In terms of Legal positivism, the court is authorized to review basic laws based on doctrines established in our ruling in an expanded composition."