Case Number
HCJ 6298/07 , HCJ 6318/07, HCJ 6319/07 , HCJ 6320/07 , HCJ 6866/07
Date Decided
2-21-2012
Decision Type
Original
Document Type
Full Opinion
Abstract
Facts: The subject of military service for hareidi (ultra-Orthodox), full-time yeshiva (rabbinical seminary) students has been at the center of public debate in Israel since the founding of the state, when the first Defense Minister, David Ben Gurion, decided to defer their conscription. The arrangement was significantly expanded over the years, and its underlying reasons also changed. Numerous attempts were made to challenge the legality and constitutionality of the deferment arrangement in the Supreme Court. The first petitions were denied for lack of standing and non-justiciability In the 1986 Ressler case [3], the Court held that the petitioner had standing, and that his petition was justiciable, but denied the petition on the merits, holding that granting deferments to yeshiva students was within the scope of authority of the Minister of Defense. However, the Court also held that the number of students receiving deferments was of relevance, and that “quantity makes a qualitative difference”. Thus, there was a limit that a reasonable Defense Minister could not exceed. In the 1997 Rubinstein case [1], the data showed such a significant increase in the number of deferments. The Court held that the Minister of Defense did not have the authority to continue to grant the deferments, and that the matter had become one that must be decided by the Knesset in primary legislation.
Following that decision, the Knesset enacted the Deferment of Military Service for Yeshiva Students Law, 5762-2002. The law was an enacted as a temporary order that would be in force for five years, at which time the Knesset could extend its force. The constitutionality of that law was challenged in the Movement for Quality Government case [2]. The Court ruled that the Deferment Law violated the right to human dignity, but that it served a proper purpose as required under sec. 8 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (the “limitation clause”). The Court, therefore, refrained from declaring the Law unconstitutional, explaining that the existence of a rational connection between a law’s purpose and the measures adopted for its realization is not a theoretical matter, but rather a practical test that is based upon the results of its actual implementation. The Court, therefore, decided to wait until the end of the five-year period, at which time the Knesset would be required to reconsider whether the Law actually realized its purposes. The Court further stated that “along with our decision to reject the petitions, as we are unable to decide the issue of constitutionality, we further hold that if the current trend continues, and there will be no significant change in the situation, there is a real fear that the Deferment Law will become unconstitutional . . . if there will be no significant change in the results of its actual implementation”. On 18 July 2007, the Knesset voted to extend the Deferment Law for an additional five years (until 1 August 2012). This prompted the petitions in this case, challenging the constitutionality of the Deferment Law.
Held: The Court (per President Beinisch, Justices Naor, Rubinstein, Hayut, Melcer and Hendel concurring, Deputy President Rivlin and Justices Grunis and Arbel dissenting) granted the petitions, holding the Deferment Law to be unconstitutional.
In the Movement for Quality Government case, the Court had found that the Deferment Law violated Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, but that it did so for purposes that was held to be proper. After examining the statistics concerning the actual implementation of the Law, the Court found that although the data revealed an increase in the number of hareidi men enlisting for military service or volunteering for alternative civilian service, the trend was insufficient, some ten years after the enactment of the Law, to demonstrate a significant realization of the purposes of the Law. Moreover, in examining the implementation of the Law, the Court found that the Law suffered from inherent flaws that impaired the possibility of realizing its objectives. Because the right to equality constitutes a fundamental right, the level of scrutiny required in examining whether its violation meets the proportionality test demands that there be a real, significant probability that the means adopted by the Law will achieve its purposes. Inasmuch as the means adopted by the Law were not found to have a real potential for realizing its purposes, the Law did not meet the requirements of the proportionality test established under the limitation clause, as is required of a law that violates a fundamental right. The Law, therefore, was unconstitutional.
Justice Arbel (dissenting, joined by Deputy President Rivlin) was of the opinion that the time was not yet ripe for making a final ruling upon the constitutionality of the Law, and that the Court should continue to show restraint, and grant the State additional time to implement the Law and achieve its purposes.
Justice Grunis (dissenting) reiterated the view he had expressed in his dissenting opinion in the Movement for Quality Government case, according to which judicial review is inappropriate for laws in which the majority grants preferential rights to a minority. Justice Grunis further argued that the ability of the Court to exert influence over an issue such as that raised in the petitions is limited. Therefore, it would be better that the Court refrain from intervening.
Although the Court found the Deferment Law to be unconstitutional, inasmuch as it was due to expire six months following the handing down of the decision, the Court decided not to declare it void, but rather to allow it to run its course, while holding that law could not be further extended by the Knesset in its present form.
Keywords
Constitutional Law -- Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, Constitutional Law -- Equality Before the Law, Constitutional Law -- Judicial Review
