The Emergency Order and the Constitutional Challenge
Following a wave of incidents, the Minister of Transport issued an order under a broad statutory power 'to regulate transport for the public safety.' The order requires all ride-hailing drivers in a defined metropolitan area to install a government-approved camera system at their own expense (estimated 3,500 NIS per vehicle) within 30 days, and to transmit footage to a government server. No hearing was held before the order. The statute does not expressly authorize data collection or cost imposition. A drivers' association petitions the High Court of Justice, arguing: (1) the order exceeds the statutory authority; (2) it violates the right to privacy and the right to property; and (3) the 30-day deadline is arbitrary. The state argues the matter is non-justiciable because it involves operational security judgment.
1. Analyze the ultra vires and proportionality challenges.
Read the worked answer
Ultra vires. An administrative order must fall within the four corners of its enabling statute. The statute authorizes regulation 'for the public safety' in transport. A requirement to install cameras and transmit footage to a government server is a data-collection measure, not a transport-safety measure in the ordinary sense. Where the statute contains no express authorization for data collection or for imposing costs on private persons, the order exceeds the enabling power. The court applies the presumption that fundamental rights are not infringed absent clear statutory language.
Proportionality. Even if within power, the order must satisfy the three-step proportionality test: (a) appropriate means to a legitimate purpose; (b) least restrictive means; (c) proportionate burden. Continuous transmission of footage to a government server is a serious privacy intrusion. Less restrictive alternatives exist: local recording, retention limits, access controls, or requiring cameras only where a specific risk is shown. The blanket geographic requirement fails the least-restrictive-means step. The 3,500 NIS cost imposed without hearing or compensation weighs against proportionality.
Justiciability. Operational security judgment may attract deference, but the choice of means and the imposition of costs and data collection are classic questions of law and proportionality, fully justiciable. The court will not defer on the question whether the statute authorizes the measure at all.
Result. The order is likely to be struck or suspended, with the court inviting the state to promulgate a lawful arrangement.
2. Analyze the procedural fairness challenge, including the absence of a hearing.
Read the worked answer
The right to be heard before an adverse administrative decision is a foundational principle of administrative law. It applies with particular force where the decision imposes a direct financial burden and intrudes on privacy.
The order was issued without any prior hearing to the affected drivers. The state may argue that a general normative order (as opposed to an individual decision) does not require individual hearings. That distinction has force: a legislative-type rule need not be preceded by individual hearings, but it does require a fair process of consultation where identifiable interests are directly and substantially affected.
Here the order targets a defined class, imposes a concrete cost, and mandates data transmission. The absence of any consultation is a procedural defect. The court will weigh whether the defect caused prejudice; where the affected parties had no opportunity to present information relevant to the least-restrictive-means analysis, the defect is material.
The 30-day deadline compounds the fairness problem: it is short, unexplained, and unsupported by any stated urgency assessment. An arbitrary deadline that prevents compliance is itself a ground for intervention.
Conclusion: the procedural challenge succeeds at least in part. The court may suspend the order and require a proper process, including consultation and a reasoned proportionality assessment.