The ‘reasonableness’ doctrine lies at the core of Israel’s judicial overhaul. This doctrine, as per the recently approved legislation, prevents judges from nullifying government decisions on the basis of being deemed ‘unreasonable.’

In the past, Israeli courts have applied the ‘reasonableness’ doctrine to evaluate the legitimacy and rationality of government actions and decisions. Judges consider whether a government decision is within the bounds of reason and whether it aligns with the broader public interest.

With the approval of this controversial legislation, there are concerns raised by various groups. Proponents argue that the changes will enable more effective governance, while still allowing other forms of judicial review, like proportionality, to remain intact. They believe it will strike a balance between government authority and judicial oversight.

On the other hand, critics fear that by restricting judicial oversight and the ability to strike down ‘unreasonable’ government decisions, the country’s democratic checks and balances could be undermined. They argue that this shift could weaken the Supreme Court’s authority and lead to the concentration of power in the hands of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his parliamentary majority.

As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen how this legislative change will impact Israel’s judiciary, governance, and the rights of its citizens. The public’s response, further legal challenges, and possible amendments to the law will shape the course of action in the aftermath of this significant overhaul.