Tel Aviv [Israel], September 13 : The Israeli Supreme Court has heard the first petition challenging Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's contentious judicial overhaul, reported Al Jazeera on Tuesday.
Despite large protests and strikes, including dissent within the military, Netanyahu's far-right government drove the bill, which limits the judiciary's ability to strike down laws deemed "extremely unreasonable" by the court, through parliament in July.
For the first time in Israel's history, the session was held in front of all 15 members of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, emphasising the importance the body places on the decision.
“Democracy does not die with a few major blows, but rather with many small steps,” Israeli Supreme Court judge Isaac Amit said during the hearing, according to Al Jazeera.
The court ultimately agreed to give the lawyers in court 21 days to revise their arguments.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Esther Hayut, sat in the midst of the Justices' semi-circular table, where she presided over the session, facing a parallel table crammed with lawyers representing the government and a group of eight petitioners requesting that the court overrule the measure.
The Israeli parliament's ratification of the "reasonableness clause" bill, the first component of Benjamin Netanyahu's reform package has sparked an unprecedented crisis and exposed a widening societal divide in the country.
The government is under constant pressure from protesters to stop more reform initiatives.
The reforms include major changes to laws shaping the balance of power between the Knesset and the High Court of Justice, splitting the attorney general’s role and limiting the ability to petition against government actions, according to Al Jazeera.
The judicial overhaul is a package of bills that requires to pass three votes in the Knesset. Netanyahu and his supporters have said that the judicial overhaul is meant to rebalance powers between the branches of government.
Meanwhile, critics said it poses a threat to Israel's democracy and the independence of the judiciary.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor