Court ruling9/3/2026

High Court of Justice Temporarily Freezes Key Provisions of the Police Internal Investigations Department Law

The High Court of Justice temporarily suspended the implementation of several provisions in the legislative amendment concerning the Police Internal Investigations Department (Mahash). The decision was issued by a two-to-one majority and, at this stage, does not determine either the fate of the petitions filed or the constitutionality of the amendment.

Key facts

•Court: the High Court of Justice — Bagatz
•Three petitions are under consideration
•Decision: by a majority of 2 to 1
•Sections 49H3–49H5 and 49Yod-Gimel were suspended
•The case numbers and exact date were not specified in the source

What the Court Considered

The interim order was issued in the context of three petitions against the legislative amendment. The petitioners include the Movement for Quality Government, the organization “Academia for a Democratic Israel,” and the Israel Bar Association. The case numbers and the exact date of the decision were not specified in the source.

Which Provisions Were Suspended

The Court temporarily stayed the implementation of Sections 49H3–49H5 and 49Yod-Gimel of the Police Ordinance, which were added as part of the disputed amendment. At this stage, the appointment procedures established under the new law may not proceed, including the appointment of the head of Mahash. The Court had previously instructed Justice Minister Yariv Levin not to advance such appointments until a decision was made on the issue of interim relief.

The Positions of the Parties and the Justices

Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit and Justice Daphne Barak-Erez supported the temporary suspension; Deputy President Noam Sohlberg wrote a dissenting opinion. The petitioners and the Attorney General supported the interim order, relying, among other things, on the amendment’s immediate impact on Mahash’s work and on the election period. The Knesset and the justice minister opposed it, emphasizing the status of Knesset legislation.

This Is Still Not a Final Decision

The decision preserves the existing situation while the legal proceedings continue. The High Court of Justice did not rule on the petitions themselves and did not determine whether the amendment is constitutional. The ultimate outcome of the dispute was not specified in the source.

What this means for you

As long as the interim order remains in effect, the appointment procedures under the new provisions cannot proceed, including the appointment of the head of Mahash. For citizens, this means that the disputed changes to the department’s structure are temporarily not being implemented, but they have not yet been struck down and may depend on a further decision by the High Court of Justice.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings