In an unprecedented ruling on Thursday, Israel’s High Court escalated its pattern of overreach and invalidated the appointment of Michael Rabello as state comptroller.

The decision is a major legal and political drama with constitutional implications. The Court unanimously accepted left-wing petitions challenging the results of the election, ruling that a new election be held as soon as possible.

The decision was made despite the fact that the Knesset’s legal adviser was present during the election and approved its legality.

Coalition members are calling to ignore the order, raising fears of a constitutional crisis. Likud MK Chanoch Milwidsky responded to the decision with a single word—”No!”—and later wrote: “This is just the preview of what they intend to do in the general elections.”

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir also attacked the court, saying: “Those who appointed themselves, contrary to the law, are invalidating the lawful choice of the Knesset. The High Court is trampling the Knesset through a reckless anti-democratic conduct that has already become routine.”

The decision was made by a five-justice panel—”President” Yitzchak Amit, Deputy President Noam Sohlberg, and Justices Daphne Barak-Erez, Gila Canfy-Steinitz, and Ruth Ronen

Sohlberg justified the decision in his ruling by writing that the fact that some Knesset members took “selfies” while voting invalidated the election, since the law requires the election to be held by ‘secret ballot.'”

During a second High Court hearing on the petitions held Sunday, the Knesset’s attorney, Yitzchak Bart, argued that because there has never been an explicit prohibition against members of Knesset taking selfies in the voting booth during a secret ballot, the practice cannot be considered a flaw in the election process.

Bart explained that any flaw must be clearly defined in advance, and a vote cannot be invalidated based on a retroactive determination that taking selfies in the voting booth was improper.

“In our view, there was no fundamental flaw in the voting process that undermined the validity of the vote,” he said. He added that even if such a flaw existed, the Court should refrain from overturning the vote because of the need for heightened judicial restraint regarding the Knesset’s internal proceedings and because invalidating a parliamentary vote is an extreme measure.

Bart also stated that there is no concrete evidence that MKs were instructed to photograph themselves while voting. “Given the high evidentiary standard required, there is no evidence that such instructions were given,” he said.

Attorney Ilan Bombach, representing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and the Likud party, argued that the petitions seek an unprecedented judicial intervention in the Knesset’s internal procedures.

“We are dealing here with an extraordinarily unusual intervention in the Knesset’s internal rules governing a parliamentary vote,” Bombach said. “Retired Justice Elron did not even take the minimal step of filing a petition himself, even though he is the directly affected party. Elron himself has previously ruled that simply naming the affected party as a respondent is insufficient. There is not even the slightest evidentiary basis here.”

(YWN Israel Desk—Jerusalem)