← All news
High-profile case

Analysis: Judicial Ombudsman Exceeded His Authority in Pending Radio Case

A Zman.co.il legal commentary argues that Judicial Ombudsman Asher Kula improperly intervened in petitions still pending before the High Court of Justice. This is the author’s analysis of Kula’s decision supporting Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi’s complaint—not a court judgment on the ombudsman’s authority.

Key facts

  • Forum: High Court of Justice
  • Ombudsman: Asher Kula
  • Complainant: Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi
  • Judges: Yitzhak Amit, Alex Stein and Gila Canfy-Steinitz
  • Ombudsman’s decision: 27 pages
  • Case numbers and exact decision dates: not stated

The dispute before the High Court

The pending petitions challenge an expansion of the broadcast areas of regional radio stations. They initially concerned a decision by the Frequencies Committee, but their scope widened after Karhi sought to expand those areas under a different statutory provision, and he was then joined to the proceedings. In May, the High Court issued an order nisi and an interim order freezing the expansion.

Karhi’s complaint

Karhi complained that the interim order restricted his authority before he had been joined to the petitions and given an opportunity to present his position. Kula sided with the complaint against Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit and Justices Alex Stein and Gila Canfy-Steinitz, finding that Karhi’s right to be heard had been impaired. However, Kula’s 27-page decision also stated that Karhi ultimately suffered no harm because his position was heard on its merits, although belatedly.

Why the commentary says Kula overreached

Author Yuval Yoaz argues that the ombudsman may review judicial conduct but should not examine the substance of judicial decisions, which belongs to the appellate process. He says Kula crossed that line by reviewing decisions in an unresolved case and requesting real-time explanations from the judges. The commentary also notes that courts may issue interim orders without first hearing every party and that the Attorney General determines the state’s legal position, while the State Attorney’s Office had participated from the outset.

A separate institutional challenge

The source also reports that a separate petition is pending against the amendment to the law governing the ombudsman, which enabled the coalition to appoint Kula. According to the commentary, President Amit previously determined that Kula’s appointment itself was already a completed fact regardless of the result of that petition. The source does not provide case numbers or a final judgment in either pending proceeding.

What this means for you

The dispute concerns whether the Judicial Ombudsman may examine alleged procedural unfairness while the underlying court case is still underway. For ordinary people, the commentary highlights a contested boundary between complaints about a judge’s conduct and challenges to the substance of judicial rulings. It does not establish a binding new legal rule because it is an analytical opinion, and the petitions remain pending.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings

Latest legal news