i24NEWS Opposes State's Delay Request in Supreme Court Communications Law Petitions
i24NEWS has strongly objected to the state's request for a deadline extension in Supreme Court petitions against the new Communications Law, warning of prolonged freezes during election season.
The i24NEWS channel has strongly opposed the state's request to extend the deadline for submitting its position in petitions against the new Communications Law. In a document submitted to the Supreme Court, the channel argued that technical requests for extensions should not lead to the de facto freezing of a primary Knesset law for weeks or months.
The new Communications Law includes nearly 200 clauses and dozens of regulatory arrangements designed to reform and regulate the broadcasting market in Israel. Petitions against the law were submitted to the Supreme Court by various entities, including television channels and civil society organizations. Following the petitions, the court issued a temporary injunction freezing the law's implementation. The state requested an extension mere hours before the September 10, 2026 deadline, citing workload difficulties, the summer recess, and the Tishrei holidays.
The Legal Debate and Election Timing
i24NEWS argued that the temporary injunction was intended to freeze the law's entry into force for a short period until the state's position was received and an orderly discussion took place. However, the channel contends that repeated extensions effectively turn the temporary injunction into an interim order without proper discussion or justification.
"Freezing a law designed to remove barriers and open the communications market to competition harms the public interest during a sensitive pre-election period," the legal filing stated.
The channel's lawyers also pointed to the state's previous stance regarding Army Radio (Galei Tzahal), according to which steps that restrict media activity should not be taken during an election period.
Impact on Broadcasting and Next Steps
According to the channel, freezing the law has direct consequences for its operations. Among the frozen clauses are Clause 145, which deals with a transitional provision ensuring stability regarding remote control channel numbers, and Clause 149(b), which was designed to remove a discriminatory barrier and allow i24NEWS to broadcast over cable infrastructures as well.
Consequently, i24NEWS has asked the Supreme Court to reject the state's request and hold an urgent hearing without delay. Alternatively, if a short extension is granted to the state, the channel requested that Clauses 145 and 149(b) be immediately exempted from the freeze to prevent ongoing damage to its operations.
