Israel’s Judicial Ombudsman, retired Judge Asher Kula, has dismissed complaints filed against Judge Michael Karshan, who signed a court ruling on Shabbos, and Judge Yifat Mishori, whose home was used for a gathering alleged to be political in nature. While rejecting both complaints, Kula recommended that similar situations be avoided in the future and sharply criticized the growing practice of filing public complaints based solely on media reports.

In the case involving Judge Karshan, Kula rejected the complaint concerning the judge’s issuance of a court decision on Shabbos and took the opportunity to criticize what he described as the phenomenon of “public complainants” filing complaints without conducting any independent inquiry or consulting those directly affected.

At the same time, Kula also dismissed the complaint against Judge Mishori, which stemmed from allegations that her husband hosted a political gathering at their home.

Although both complaints were rejected, the ombudsman emphasized that greater caution should be exercised to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.

Addressing the complaint against Judge Karshan, Kula noted that four nearly identical complaints had been submitted, all based exclusively on media reports and simultaneously circulated to news outlets before any official investigation had taken place. He warned that such coordinated complaints and their publication prior to review undermine the integrity of the complaint process.

Kula wrote that the time has come to apply principles of good faith to complaints filed by members of the public. He proposed that such complaints should meet two conditions before being considered: first, the matter must genuinely raise an issue of significant public importance, and second, where there is a directly affected individual, that person should first be contacted and asked whether he supports the filing of the complaint on his behalf.

Because only one of the complaints included the position of the attorney directly affected by the incident, Kula considered that complaint while dismissing the others outright.

The complaint alleged that Judge Karshan’s decision to sign a ruling on Shabbos violated the sanctity of the day. As part of the review, the ombudsman’s office sought the position of a Shomer Shabbos attorney involved in the case.

The attorney explained that while serving in reserve military duty he was required to keep his phone available. When he received an alert from Israel’s electronic court system on Shabbos, he assumed it related to an operational military matter and opened the notification, only to discover that it was a routine technical court decision. He described feeling hurt that his religious sensitivities had been affected but stressed that he held no personal grievance against the judge and sought only to prevent similar situations in the future.

In his response, Judge Karshan explained that he is not Shomer Shabbos and occasionally works on Saturdays because of his heavy caseload. He said the decision in question was merely technical and that he signed it without realizing Shabbos had not yet ended. He expressed regret that the attorney received the notification during Shabbos and suggested that a system-wide solution be implemented to prevent non-urgent decisions from being distributed on Saturdays.

Kula ruled that the judge should have considered the possibility that Shomer Shabbos attorneys would receive such notifications. Nevertheless, he accepted the judge’s explanation that the incident resulted from an unintentional oversight rather than deliberate conduct.

In his concluding remarks, the ombudsman emphasized the importance of preserving Shabbos within the judicial system and reaffirmed the principle that non-essential judicial decisions should not be issued during Shabbos. However, because the judge apologized, acknowledged the significance of the issue, and accepted the underlying principle, Kula concluded that the complaint should not be upheld. Instead, he recommended that the Director of the Courts once again remind judges not to sign non-essential decisions on Shabbos except when absolutely necessary.

In a separate decision released Thursday, Kula also dismissed the complaint filed against Judge Mishori following reports that a political gathering had taken place in her home.

That complaint likewise relied entirely on media reports. After reviewing the matter, Kula accepted Judge Mishori’s explanation that the event was not political, contained no political elements, and was attended by no political figures. He did note, however, that the Judicial Branch’s public response had not argued that the event was non-political, but only that the judge herself had been unaware it was taking place.

Although he rejected the complaint, Kula observed that, as a general rule, political gatherings should not be held in the home of a sitting judge. He recommended that such events be avoided even in circumstances where the judge neither attended nor participated in organizing them, in order to preserve public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality.