Case Number

HCJ 4124/00

Date Decided

6-14-2010

Decision Type

Original

Document Type

Full Opinion

Abstract

Facts: Section 3(4) The Income Support Law, 5752-1982 provides that students in institutions of higher education or in other post-secondary institutions, including students in religious institutions, are not entitled to the income support benefits that are paid in accordance with that law. Nevertheless, each annual budget law since 1982 has included a budget item pursuant to which kollel students are paid minimum income support benefits. The petitioners challenged the support benefits paid pursuant to the budget item, arguing that the payment of these benefits constitutes 2 Israel Law Reports [2010] IsrLR 1 discrimination against all other students who are excluded from eligibility for payment of support benefits pursuant to the Income Support Law.

Held: Majority opinion (President D. Beinisch, with the concurrences of Justices M. Naor, S. Joubran, A. Procaccia, E. Hayut and A. Grunis): The budget item creates an arrangement in which kollel students [married students in institutions of advanced Talmudic studies] receive payments that the other students, who are excluded from the payment of such benefits according to the Income Support Law, 5741-1980, do not. This differential treatment violates the principle according to which state funds are to be distributed on the basis of equality, in accordance with uniform tests – a principle embodied both in the case law and in s. 3A of the Budget Principles Law, 5745-1985. The budget item, as part of an annual budget law, is subordinate to the provisions of the Budget Principles law, although the court must act with restraint when reviewing economic policy matters. Budgetary matters may be overturned by the court only when they involve a severe violation of a basic right. Given that the criteria for determining eligibility for the benefits pursuant to the budget item relate to the economic situation of such students, the distinction that this arrangement creates between the kollel students and the other students constitutes discrimination in that it is not based on a relevant distinction between the two groups of students. This discrimination is in fact a violation of a basic right – the right to equality.

Nevertheless, the differential treatment would be permissible if the discriminatory act is covered by the limitations clause of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Respect. But the payments do not qualify under the third of the conditions set out in that clause. The payments made pursuant to the budget item are based on a statutory provision and, according to the state’s position, the objective of these payments is the legitimate purpose of supporting Torah study. However, the payments do not meet the third condition, requiring that the measure not be an excessive one. With respect to the income support payments, there are other possible arrangements that would support the stated objective, but without violating the right to equality to the same degree. The budget item must therefore be repealed and may not be included in future budget laws; however the repeal will not be immediate, so as not to violate the reliance interest of those who have been receiving the payments pursuant to an item that has been a part of all budget laws over the course of many years.

Concurring opinion (Justice A. Procaccia): The government has a legitimate interest in supporting groups within society who wish to maintain their unique lifestyles. However, this interest may not be furthered by an act which violates the principle of equality, a principle which assumes that all citizens who are able to do so will bear the burden of providing for their own subsistence.

Minority opinion (Justice E.E. Levy): The decision to support kollel students was made in the context of the policy making power properly exercised by the Government and the Knesset, and cannot be overturned by the court. Although the government may not take discriminatory action, this action does not fall within that category, as it is based on a legitimate distinction between kollel students who study Torah as a full time occupation and other students who are pursuing their studies for a limited period of time.

Petition granted.

Keywords

Constitutional Law -- Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty

Download

Share

COinS