Case Number

HCJ 746/07

Date Decided

1-5-2011

Decision Type

Original

Document Type

Full Opinion

Abstract

[This abstract is not part of the Court's opinion and is provided for the reader's convenience. It has been translated from a Hebrew version prepared by Nevo Press Ltd. and is used with its kind permission.]

This Petition concerns bus lines operated by the Second and Third Respondents, where segregation between men and women had become customary. It was argued that these arrangements violate the principle of equality, the constitutional right to dignity and to freedom of religion and conscience and that they have been put in place without lawful authorization. Against the First Respondent (hereinafter: the Respondent) it was primarily argued that it has absolved itself from its duty to supervise the operations of the Second and Third Respondents. There is currently no dispute that the reality of segregation on bus lines, being dictated and coercive, is unlawful. The First Respondent adopted a report complied by the “Committee for Examining Riding Arrangements on Public Transportation Lines which Serve the Haredi Sector” (hereinafter: the Committee.) The report denies any intended (and therefore let alone coercive) segregation, and at the same time allows certain consideration for the will of those seeking to voluntarily uphold segregation. The dispute goes directly to the manner in which the report should be implemented and to the accompanying steps that the Respondent ought to take.

The High Court of Justice (in an opinion authored by Justice Rubinstein and joined by Justices Joubran and Danziger) held that:

The primary conclusions of the Committee were that the existing segregation policy is prohibited. However, the Committee was satisfied that the demand for public transportation where segregation between men and women is possible reflects the sincere desire of parts of the Haredi population. Currently, the agreed point of departure is that operating the bus lines in the “Mehadrin” manner is prohibited. This is the revised position of the Respondent, and thus as a regulatory body it must instruct the operators of public transportation. In other words, those operating public transportation (as any other person) is not permitted to tell, ask or order women where they must sit on the bust simply because they are women, or what they must wear, and that may sit anywhere the please. This is also the rule for men. The Committee’s instruction will from now on be the controlling legal arrangement.

Coercing segregation arrangements against women’s will and often with verbal violence and beyond is a severe violation of equality and dignity that cannot be permitted, including on the criminal law level. The recommendations of the Committee go to ensuring the rights of all users of public transportation on one hand, and granting the possibility – to those who desire it – to observe their religious and cultural views on the other. In this context, the Committee’s recommendations are acceptable to the Respondents and it cannot be said that this is a policy that is not reasonable or that requires intervention, subject to comments and additions as detailed below.

The operators of public transportation will be required to post a sign to any bus line that was previously a “Mehadrin” line that would instruct as following: “Any passenger may sit at any place they choose (except for the seats marked for people with disabilities). Harassing a passenger in this matter may constitute a criminal offense.” The Respondent may, as needs be, order posting of signs on additional lines as well. To the extent that it is decided in the future to permit loading passengers through any bus door, signs shall be posted there, too. The Second Respondent (the Third Respondents stopped providing its services) shall advertise the cancelation of the segregation arrangements as the right of each passenger to sit wherever they please; appropriate training shall be provided to drivers. The publication and the posting of signage shall be done within 30 days from the day the decision is handed down. As to the issue of women boarding through the “back door,” there will be a test period of one year while operating stronger supervision and monitoring. At the end of this period the Respondent will be permitted to again consider this issue.

Keywords

Constitutional Law -- Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, Constitutional Law -- Equality Before the Law, Constitutional Law -- Freedom of Religion, Constitutional Law -- The Rabbinate, Jewish Law -- Women

Download

Share

COinS