Court ruling10/13/2026

Melcer Does Not Regret the Decision That Allowed Netanyahu to Form a Government

Former Deputy President of the Supreme Court Hanan Melcer said that he still supports the High Court of Justice’s unanimous decision from May 2020. At the time, the Court found no impediment to entrusting Benjamin Netanyahu with the task of forming a government, despite the indictment filed against him.

Key facts

•Court: High Court of Justice, expanded panel of 11 justices
•Decision: unanimous — “0 versus 11”
•Date of judgment: May 2020
•Panel member: Hanan Melcer
•Case number: not specified in the original source
•Monetary sums and statute names: not specified

What the Court Ruled in 2020

An expanded panel of the High Court of Justice, comprising 11 justices including Melcer, ruled that the indictment filed against Netanyahu did not prevent him from being entrusted with the task of forming a government. The decision was unanimous and became known as “0 versus 11.” The case number and exact date of the judgment were not specified in the original source.

Why Melcer Defends the Judgment

At a legal panel during the “People of the State” conference, Melcer said that the justices acted within the boundaries of the law. According to him, the Court may not depart from the framework established by law to satisfy the wishes of the right, the left, or other parties. He therefore does not believe that the Court should have displayed greater activism and reached a different outcome.

The Dispute Over the Judicial Reform

At the same time, Melcer criticized the current government and argued that attempts are being made to undermine the independence of the Court and the media. Former Deputy Attorney General Dina Zilber linked the proposed changes to the weakening of mechanisms that oversee the government. Former Senior Deputy Attorney General Raz Nizri noted that the judicial system needs changes, but in his assessment, the initial proposals were closer to a coup than to a reform.

What this means for you

The judgment confirmed that the mere existence of an indictment was not recognized at the time as a legal impediment to entrusting a member of the Knesset with the task of forming a government. For citizens, this also illustrates the limits of judicial intervention: the Court examines decisions of political importance first and foremost according to the norms in force, rather than according to public expectations.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings