The High Court of Justice on Monday issued a sharp decision addressing growing disruptions inside courtrooms, as the justices prepared to hear one of the most politically explosive cases of the year: the government’s push to remove Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara.
In a verdict released shortly before the scheduled hearing, the seven-justice panel, headed by Chief Justice Isaac Amit, cautioned that persistent attempts by audience members to heckle, intimidate, or obstruct proceedings have reached a level that now threatens the court’s ability to function.
While the court ultimately chose not to limit the public for Monday’s session due to the timing of the ruling, it signaled that from now on, in cases where substantial disturbances are expected, physical access to the courtroom will be restricted, and the public will be directed to watch via live broadcast or a nearby overflow room.
Key hearings over the past few months, including Monday’s case regarding the removal of the A-G, have often drawn crowds, activists, and pressure groups into the court’s hallways. The justices stressed that while public access is a constitutional principle, it cannot come at the expense of the court’s ability to conduct hearings safely and without intimidation.
The move reflects a broadened interpretation of “publicity of proceedings,” redefining it for an era where hearings are routinely livestreamed to the entire country.
According to the court’s ruling, the last year has seen a “new phenomenon not previously known in our system”: shouting, disruptions, and attempts to interfere with attorneys mid-argument, sometimes followed by confrontations in the corridors. Security staff have reported harassment from activists lingering outside the courtroom, and several lawyers told the panel they experienced targeted hostility as they attempted to enter or leave hearings.
Such incidents, which have taken place during the mass-attendance hearings on the reasonableness clause and the Judicial Selection Committee, have been particularly acute in politically sensitive cases.
High Court of Justice: 'Public presence is not an unlimited right'
The court underscored that public presence is not an unlimited right, writing that the constitutional principle of open justice must be balanced against the court’s core obligation to hold uninterrupted, orderly proceedings that safeguard all participants. Livestreaming, the justices emphasized, fully preserves transparency even when physical attendance is capped.
The decision also noted that this is not a “closed-doors” hearing; its contents remain fully open to the public via real-time broadcast. As the verdict put it, restricting bodies in the room while maintaining live video access is “the opposite of closed doors”; rather, it reflects the modern reality that the public now consumes court proceedings primarily through media rather than physical presence.
In the specific case at hand on Monday, the multi-petition challenge to the government’s initiative to fire Baharav-Miara, the court acknowledged that the timing of the ruling made it impractical to alter the attendance protocol for the session. But going forward, each panel will decide in advance whether to limit seating to lawyers, accredited press, and essential staff.
The justices wrote that the government’s petitions and the counter-petitions filed by civil society groups address issues of exceptional public interest. However, that very interest has fueled disruptions that the court said now require preemptive management.
According to reports, security around court hearings has strengthened discreetly over the past year, particularly following incidents in which activists shouted down counsel or tried to film restricted areas inside the courtroom.
The decision also situates the attendance issue within broader legal principles: the tension between openness, public confidence in judicial processes, and the court’s institutional ability to deliver justice. The ruling quoted extensively from precedents establishing that publicity of proceedings can be fulfilled either through physical presence or through publication and that presence must yield when it endangers the proceeding itself.
The ruling makes it clear that, from this point forward, the era of audiences being automatically admitted to high-stakes hearings may be coming to an end, replaced by managed access and mandatory live broadcast alternatives.