Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara asked the High Court of Justice late Thursday night to freeze Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi’s entire Broadcasting Law until it rules on 11 petitions challenging it.
Serious failures throughout the legislative process make the petitions exceptionally strong, the court said.
Baharav-Miara told the court key parts of the reform had reached the Knesset without the appropriate professional review and were pushed through a committee effectively controlled by Karhi. The law could now trigger business and ownership changes that would be difficult to reverse if the court later strikes it down, she said.
The Knesset passed the law 53-48 on July 16, shortly before it dissolved, and it was published on July 28. Media companies, journalists’ groups, and civil-society organizations filed 11 petitions against it.
Justice Ofer Grosskopf issued a temporary order on July 19, blocking provisions that were due to take effect immediately. He did not freeze the law in full at that stage, because most of it was scheduled to take effect later.
Baharav-Miara is now asking the court to extend the freeze to the entire law until the petitions are decided.
The law is intended to update broadcasting rules written before viewers began routinely watching television online. It creates one regulator to replace the two bodies that currently oversee commercial broadcasters and cable and satellite providers, and it changes the rules governing channel distribution, news broadcasting, media ownership, and investment in Israeli productions.
Knesset didn't do the necessary work
Karhi and other supporters of the reform say the existing system is outdated, because traditional broadcasters remain subject to restrictions that largely do not apply to Internet-based competitors.
Baharav-Miara agreed that the system needs updating, but she said the government and Knesset had not done the necessary work before passing this law. She identified four connected problems that she said could justify striking it down.
The first problem began before the bill reached the Knesset, Baharav-Miara said, adding that the government had not adequately examined its economic, practical, or legal impact. It published the bill without the approval of the attorney-general or an authorized representative, while the Regulation Authority had identified substantial problems in the Communications Ministry’s assessment, she said.
In practical terms, Baharav-Miara said, MKs were asked to fill in gaps that the government should have addressed before submitting the bill. That left the Knesset trying to develop major parts of the reform while simultaneously debating and voting on them, she said.
Her second argument concerned whether MKs had a real opportunity to understand and influence the law. The Knesset special committee established to prepare the bill, chaired by Likud MK Galit Distel Atbaryan, held roughly 60 meetings. But meetings came in rapid succession, drafts had changed repeatedly, and major provisions were introduced or rewritten near the end, she said.
MKs were therefore not always given enough time to study individual changes, understand how they worked together, or propose alternatives, she added.
The High Court of Justice rarely intervenes in regard to how a law was passed, but Baharav-Miara said this went beyond a rushed or poorly managed debate and prevented MKs from properly carrying out their role.
Thirdly, she said the pace and constant changes had prevented the Knesset’s legal advisers from doing their job. They repeatedly had sought updated drafts, supporting information, and more time, and warned before the final vote that they had not completed their review, she added. MKs later said parts of the text presented to the full Knesset contained mistakes or did not match committee decisions.
Baharav-Miara’s fourth argument concerned Karhi’s role. The bill was sent to the special committee rather than the Economic Affairs Committee, which usually handles communications legislation and is chaired by Likud MK David Bitan, who had opposed parts of the reform, she said.
The Knesset certainly may establish a special committee, she said, but the objection is that Karhi went beyond promoting his ministry’s bill and effectively controlled the panel’s timetable, wording, and major decisions.
Baharav-Miara says this weakens the Knesset's independence
According to the filing, Karhi had helped draft and change almost every major part of the law. Decisions formally assigned to the committee, including dividing the bill and reopening parts for discussion, were effectively made by him and presented to members afterward, it said.
Baharav-Miara said this had weakened the Knesset’s independence, since the minister whose policy was under review was also directing much of the review.
Before the final vote, MKs had removed entire sections dealing with enforcement, news providers, international content platforms, and prohibited broadcasts, the filing said. Baharav-Miara said this had left an incomplete law that imposed or retained certain obligations without making clear how they would be enforced.
Another late amendment raised the annual revenue ceiling for a “small license” from NIS 80 million to NIS 2 billion. From January 1, 2027, that change would allow Keshet and Reshet to broadcast news without keeping their news operations in separate companies.
The separation is intended to shield editorial decisions from the commercial interests of the companies controlling Channels 12 and 13, Baharav-Miara said. The law does not require the broadcasters to dismantle their news companies, but it removes the requirement to keep them without providing an equivalent safeguard, she said.
Baharav-Miara raised a similar concern about media ownership: The law immediately removes some restrictions on companies holding interests in both commercial channels and cable or satellite platforms, but the replacement approval system will not take effect for two years.
Companies could use that gap to complete deals that concentrate media ownership before the new safeguard exists, she said, adding that those transactions could be difficult to undo later.
Those possible changes are the main reason the court should freeze the law now rather than wait for a final ruling, Baharav-Miara said. Leaving the current rules in place would preserve the market, she said. Allowing the law to proceed could prompt broadcasters, investors, and distributors to change ownership, sign contracts, and make long-term decisions under rules the court may later invalidate, she added.
The risk was especially serious because the changes affect news and current-affairs broadcasting during an election period, when the independence and diversity of the media carry heightened public importance, Baharav-Miara said.
Karhi, who is represented separately because his position conflicts with the attorney-general’s, has also rejected the court’s authority to freeze the legislation. He accused the court and Baharav-Miara of protecting established media organizations.
The High Court must now decide whether to freeze the law in full, retain Grosskopf’s narrower temporary order, or allow some or all of the blocked provisions to take effect.
That decision will govern the broadcasting market while the petitions are heard. It will not determine the petitions themselves or decide whether the law should ultimately be struck down.
Keshet Neev contributed to this report.