The High Court of Justice heard arguments on Sunday in a case over Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi’s handling of appointments tied to the governing council of Israel’s public broadcaster, KAN, in a dispute that has become a broader test of the independence and functioning of public broadcasting in Israel.
At the center of the hearing are petitions challenging steps Karhi took – and, in some cases, failed to take – that critics say helped leave KAN’s council without a quorum and unable to function fully.
According to the attorney-general’s position, submitted ahead of the hearing, Karhi’s decision to remove retired judge Nehama Munitz from her post as chair of the search committee was unlawful, lacked an adequate factual basis, and amounted to forbidden interference in an independent appointments process.
The attorney-general’s office asked the court to cancel Munitz’s removal and to order the immediate transfer of council nominations for review by the appointments committee. In its filing, the state argued that Karhi’s conduct raises serious concerns that he deliberately sought to frustrate the independent work of the search committee, whose role is to recommend members for the council.
The practical stakes are significant. Under Israeli law, KAN’s council is meant to have 12 members, but only five are currently serving, below the minimum seven needed for a quorum. Without a functioning council, the broadcaster has not been able to approve its budget for the current year and has been operating since the start of 2026 under a continuation budget instead.
Petitioners also warned that the paralysis could affect future decisions, including the appointment of a director-general later this year.
Sunday’s hearing is the latest chapter in a long-running confrontation between Karhi and the public broadcaster. In August 2025, the High Court ruled that Karhi had no authority to intervene in the appointments process once he had appointed the chair of the search committee. At the time, the court found he could not involve himself in the committee’s work.
The dispute has also unfolded against a wider political and legislative push around public broadcasting. Karhi has for months advocated major changes to KAN, including proposals to privatize it, cut its public funding, or strip it of parts of its news operation – steps critics say would erode the broadcaster’s independence.
Earlier Jerusalem Post reporting also placed the current case in the context of that broader campaign against the broadcaster’s structure and autonomy.
At Sunday’s hearing, Karhi defended his decision by arguing that removing Munitz was not only reasonable but also necessary.
He argued that she had consulted an outside party on candidate eligibility, disclosed sensitive information submitted to the committee, and retroactively added an unlawful threshold condition requiring a degree in communications rather than any academic degree – a change he said improperly filtered candidates.
Not Karhi's first clash with court over KAN
But the justices appeared skeptical of central parts of that argument.
Justice Ofer Grosskopf questioned whether even an error in setting threshold conditions could justify disqualifying the committee chair and suggested that changing one’s position after receiving legal advice was not inherently problematic. He stressed that once the minister appointed the committee chair, he was not supposed to remain involved in the process.
Justice Khaled Kabub similarly pressed Karhi’s side on whether accepting guidance from legal advisers could really make Munitz so unreliable that the minister could no longer trust her. Justice Gila Canfy-Steinitz also pointed to what appeared, from the exchanges cited in court, to be intervention by Karhi inside an ongoing process.
The bench also raised concerns about the consultation process required by law before removing the head of the search committee. Under the statute, the communications minister must consult with the president of the Supreme Court before dismissing the chair. During the hearing, Kabub reportedly suggested that the consultation in this case appeared perfunctory and flawed.
Karhi, who was granted the unusual opportunity to address the court directly, said he recognized the supremacy of the rule of law and would obey the court if it ordered that Munitz remain in office. At the same time, he indicated he did not necessarily see himself as bound to act on the recommendations that emerged from the process.
Karhi has also publicly clashed with the court before over the broadcaster. In July 2025, he said he would not honor a High Court order extending the term of a KAN council member, a move that drew sharp criticism and added to concerns over the council’s paralysis.