The High Court of Justice on Tuesday canceled Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi’s decision to remove retired judge Nechama Munitz as chairwoman of the search committee for the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation Council, ruling that the decision did not meet the legal threshold for ending her term.
The ruling, handed down by Justices Ofer Grosskopf, Gila Canfy-Steinitz, and Khaled Kabub, addressed five petitions concerning the prolonged failure to complete appointments to the council, which oversees public broadcaster KAN.
The judgment centered on Karhi’s September 17, 2025, decision to remove Munitz from her role.
Under the Public Broadcasting Law, the search committee chair may be removed before the end of the contracted term only under limited circumstances, such as if the chair “does not perform his role properly,” and after consultation with the president of the Supreme Court.
The court held that this authority must be interpreted narrowly. It is not enough, the justices said, for the minister to disagree with the chair’s decisions or with the way the process was conducted. Removal requires a factual basis showing that the chair failed to perform the role in a manner that justifies ending the appointment.
The court found that such a basis did not exist.
Justices rule Karhi lacked grounds to remove Nechama Munitz
Karhi argued that Munitz had compromised her independence by relying on legal advisers; that an improper threshold requirement had been added during the process for choosing additional search committee members; and that she had involved an unauthorized outside figure. The court rejected those grounds.
The justices said that consulting with the Communications Ministry’s legal advisers did not amount to a failure to perform her duties. Rather, legal advice is part of the ordinary work of an administrative body, particularly in a process involving public appointments. The court also noted that public officials are generally required to act according to binding legal advice.
Regarding the threshold conditions used in the search committee process, the court acknowledged that it would have been preferable for the full conditions to be set out earlier. However, it found that the issue did not justify removing Munitz from office. The appointments vetting committee had already examined the matter and concluded that the process should not be canceled on that basis, while recommending that, in future, such conditions be included in the public call for candidates.
The court also found no evidentiary basis for the claim that Munitz had improperly involved an external person in the process. Munitz had denied the allegation, and the court said the material before it did not support it.
The decision, therefore, canceled Karhi’s removal of Munitz and left in place the search committee’s prior actions.
The broader background to the case is the ongoing failure to complete appointments to the KAN council.
The council is supposed to include 12 members and is responsible – among other things – for determining the broadcaster’s policy, approving its schedules, appointing the director-general, approving the budget, and setting ethics rules.
The law requires that most council members be lawfully serving for the council to exercise its powers. According to the ruling, after five council members completed their terms in November 2024, the council was left unable to function properly.
The court described the appointments process as a three-stage mechanism: the search committee identifies and recommends candidates; the appointments vetting committee examines them; and the communications minister then makes the appointment decision.
The justices emphasized that the minister’s role remains part of the process. However, because the law gives the search committee a central professional role, the minister cannot block the earlier stages of the process or prevent the statutory mechanism from advancing.
Accordingly, the court ordered the appointments process to advance for four pending council candidacies: Aliza Dayan Hamama’s appointment to the council, and the proposed extensions of the terms of sitting council members Michal Raphaeli-Kaduri, Prof. Menachem Ben-Sasson, and Amir Sabhat.
The vetting committee was ordered to complete its review by May 31. If it approves the candidates, their names must be transferred to Karhi, who must make a decision within seven days.
The court did not order Karhi to appoint the candidates. It did, however, make clear that the process cannot remain stalled.
The justices also addressed the status of the search committee, which had been operating with two members after only one additional member had been appointed alongside Munitz. Grosskopf held that the law allows the committee to function with two members. Canfy-Steinitz disagreed with that interpretation going forward, but agreed that the committee’s previous actions should remain valid. Kabub said the question did not need to be decided at this stage, given the circumstances and the court’s prior decisions.
The practical result was that the committee’s previous work was not canceled. The court also left in place temporary orders extending the terms of some sitting council members until their appointment processes are completed.
Karhi criticized the ruling after it was issued, saying that the decision was “on ice” and that he would not appoint the candidates recommended by Munitz.