Supreme Court Freezes Discriminatory Budget Cuts in Child Allowances

 

Today, the Supreme Court issued a temporary injunction freezing the implementation of a new law for 30 days, which would cut child allowances by 20% to families who do not serve in the military. The Court also decided to expand the panel of justices hearing the case, and requested further submissions by the state. 

On 5 June 2002, the Knesset passed an amendment to Article 68 (a) of the National Insurance Law (1995) that would apply a 4% cut to all child allowance payments, and an additional 20% cut in the amounts paid to parents of children without a relative serving in the Israeli army. Palestinian citizens of Israel, the majority of whom are exempt from and do not serve in the army, would be most severely affected by the amendment. 

On 6 June 2002, Adalah and the National Committee of Arab Mayors filed a petition to the Supreme Court seeking the cancellation of the new law. In the petition, Adalah argued that the amendment is unconstitutional as it amounts to intentional discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel on the basis of national belonging and denies Palestinian citizens' right to equality. The petitioners' stressed that it is not legitimate, in a democratic society, to make the enjoyment of equal civil rights conditional on military service. 

On 13 June 2002, the Supreme Court issued an order nisi requiring the Knesset and the National Insurance Institute to respond to the petition within 20 days. At that time, the Court rejected the petitioners' request for an immediate injunction freezing the implementation of the law pending the outcome of the case. The Court also joined six other petitions challenging the amendment, filed by Members of Knesset and Israeli human rights and children's rights organizations, to Adalah's petition for hearing and decision. 

The respondents submitted arguments in response to the order nisi on 16 July 2002. The respondents argued that the cuts were required to begin to address the urgent economic crisis facing the state. The state claimed that the new law had two purposes: (i) during a severe economic crisis, the public must contribute financially to assist the state; and (ii) providing incentives and benefits to those who do serve in the military. The state also argued that the Supreme Court had no power of judicial review over Knesset budgetary decisions, even if discriminatory. 

On 10 October 2002, Adalah submitted written arguments to the Supreme Court in response to the state. Adalah emphasized in its submission that the new law was not enacted for an appropriate purpose: There is no relationship between the state's economic crisis and at the same time awarding benefits to those who serve in the military. In addition, child allowances should not be used to achieve that purpose. The main purpose of child allowances, as with all forms of social insurance, is to help disadvantaged or weak groups, namely, children. The new law has the opposite effect, as it would severely harm children of parents who do not serve in the military. In order to minimize the effect on all children, the cuts in allowances should be shared equally. Moreover, Palestinian citizens of Israel currently face the highest rates of unemployment and poverty in the country, and deep budget cuts would make their socio-economic condition far worse. 

In addition to the arguments submitted, Adalah filed a second motion for a temporary injunction on 11 October 2002, which the Supreme Court heard today. In this motion and in representations today before the Supreme Court, Adalah General Director Hassan Jabareen, Advocate argued that since the Court last considered the case in June 2002, there had been an important change of circumstances. At the time the Knesset voted to enact the new law, the National Insurance Institute had estimated that 223,000 families would be affected by the cuts. According to media reports on 10 October 2002, the National Insurance Institute had substantially revised that figure and estimated that 375,000 families - 30% of whom are Palestinian citizens of Israel and 36% of whom are new immigrants - would be affected. 

Supreme Court Chief Justice Aharon Barak and Justices Dorner and Englard heard the arguments today and issued the temporary injunction freezing the implementation of the law for 30 days. 

H.C. 4822/02, The National Committee of Arab Mayors and Adalah v. Avraham Burg, Chair of the Knesset