‘Illegal and unprecedented': Israel fires attorney general; Supreme Court halts move
Israel's government plunged deeper into political crisis on Monday after the cabinet unanimously voted to dismiss Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, a move immediately blocked by the country's Supreme Court.
The court issued an injunction suspending the decision pending legal review, preventing any replacement from being appointed in the meantime.
Justice Minister Yariv Levin formally notified Baharav-Miara of the cabinet's decision, saying she 'should not try to impose herself on a government that has no trust in her.' Baharav-Miara, a central figure in multiple legal battles involving Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu
's administration, has frequently challenged the legality of key decisions, including Netanyahu's May attempt to sack the head of the Shin Bet security agency, Ronen Bar.
That move was widely seen as retaliation for Bar's role in an ongoing investigation into alleged illicit Qatari payments to Netanyahu's aides—a case dubbed 'Qatargate' in Israeli media. Netanyahu and his allies accuse the attorney general of overstepping her role and obstructing elected officials, while critics argue that her removal represents a dangerous attack on judicial independence.
Following the dismissal, opposition party Yesh Atid and several watchdog organisations filed emergency petitions with the High Court.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
When Knee Pain Hits, Start Eating These Foods, and Feel Your Pain Go Away (It's Genius)
Lintmit.com
Click Here
Undo
The Movement for Quality Government, a leading civil group, described the firing as 'illegal' and 'unprecedented,' accusing the government of changing the rules after failing to remove Baharav-Miara through legal means. 'This decision turns the role of the attorney general into a political appointment,' it said.
The court has scheduled hearings over the next 30 days to consider the legality of the move. The attorney general has argued that Netanyahu's ongoing corruption trial creates a conflict of interest that bars him from removing her.
The high-stakes confrontation comes as Netanyahu faces increasing domestic and international pressure over the war in Gaza. He vowed on Monday to update Israel's war strategy, with reports suggesting a plan to reoccupy all of Gaza may be in the works. Meanwhile, criticism continues to mount over the government's handling of the hostage crisis and aid restrictions in the Palestinian territory.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
20 minutes ago
- First Post
FirstUp: Trump's Russia deadline; SC to hear plea on J-K statehood... The news today
The deadline set by US President Donald Trump for the Russian president to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine or face sanctions on oil exports ends today. Today, the Supreme Court of India will also hear a plea to restore the statehood of Jammu and Kashmir read more Trump has shown growing frustration with Putin over the lack of progress on peace. Reuters/File Photo It is a busy day. US President Donald Trump's deadline for Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine ends today. The Supreme Court is likely to hear a plea today that asks the Centre to restore statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. Singapore Prime Minister Lawrence Wong will deliver a National Day message today, a day before National Day. West Bengal is expected to see fresh protests starting today, as several groups plan protests marking one year since the RG Kar rape and murder case. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Let's take a look: Trump's deadline for Russia to end Ukraine war expires The deadline set by US President Donald Trump for the Russian president to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine or face sanctions on oil exports comes to an end today. A White House official told Reuters that Trump could meet Vladimir Putin as early as next week, with the US continuing to prepare for secondary sanctions. These could also target countries like China in a bid to push Moscow towards ending the war. Trump has shown growing frustration with Putin over the lack of progress on peace and has warned of steep tariffs on nations buying Russian oil and other exports. US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are seen during the G20 leaders' summit. Reuters/File Photo Washington has warned of 'severe tariffs' and other financial measures if the violence continues. Trump has also spoken of raising import taxes on countries that purchase Russian oil, which could lead to higher tariffs for nations like China and India. SC to hear plea on restoration of statehood of J&K The Supreme Court is likely to hear a plea today asking the Centre to restore statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. The petition says that even after the court upheld the removal of Article 370, which gave special status to J-K, there has been no move to bring back statehood. It argues that this goes against the principle of federalism. A view of Supreme Court of India building in New Delhi. PTI In its December 2023 judgment, the Supreme Court said Article 370 was only a temporary part of the Constitution. It ruled that the President had the power to revoke it after the Constituent Assembly of the former state ended in 1957. Singapore's Wong to deliver National Day address Singapore Prime Minister Lawrence Wong will deliver the National Day message today, on the eve of the country's National Day. This will be his second National Day message as prime minister, after taking office on May 15, 2024. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry Gan Kim Yong will deliver the speech in Mandarin. Associate Professor Faishal Ibrahim, who serves as Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs and Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs, will deliver the address in Malay. Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth and Manpower, Dinesh Vasu Dash, will deliver the message in Tamil. Protests in Bengal over RG Kar case anniversary Fresh protests are expected in West Bengal starting today, as various groups plan demonstrations to mark one year since the rape and murder of a female trainee doctor at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata in August last year. Her body was found on the morning of August 9 inside a seminar hall on the hospital premises. While civic volunteer Sanjay Roy, the only person convicted in the case, has already been given a life sentence by a trial court, the Central Bureau of Investigation has yet to finish its probe into the alleged 'larger conspiracy' behind the crime. Her body was found on the morning of August 9 inside a seminar hall on the hospital premises. Reuters/File Photo Last year's protests mainly targeted the state government and the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC). This year, the protests are expected to take a wider view, also raising questions about the CBI's failure to complete a full investigation. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD With inputs from agencies
India.com
20 minutes ago
- India.com
No Trade Talks With India Until..., Says Donald Trump Amid Tariff Tensions
In an interview with ANI at the Oval Office if talks could resume after the new 50% tariff, Trump said, 'No, not until we get it resolved.' On Wednesday, the White House issued an Executive Order adding another 25% tariff on Indian goods, taking the total to 50%. The US government said the move was due to national security and foreign policy concerns, pointing to India's continued imports of Russian oil. The order stated that these oil imports, whether bought directly or through other countries, pose an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' to the US, justifying emergency economic action. According to US officials, the initial 25% tariff came into effect on 7 August. The additional levy will take effect in 21 days and apply to all Indian goods entering US ports -- with exceptions for items already in transit and certain exempt categories. The order also provides flexibility for the president to modify the measures, depending on changing geopolitical circumstances or retaliatory actions by India or other nations. India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi responded defiantly during a speech at the MS Swaminathan Centenary International Conference in New Delhi, signalling that New Delhi would not back down in the face of economic pressure. "For us, the interest of our farmers is our top priority," PM Modi said. "India will never compromise on the interests of farmers, fishermen and dairy farmers. I know we will have to pay a heavy price for it, and I am ready for it. India is ready for it." India has consistently pushed back against opening sensitive sectors such as agriculture and dairy to international competition, citing the potential impact on millions of rural livelihoods. The standoff marks a sharp escalation in trade tensions between the two countries, as both sides dig in over economic policy and matters of national interest.
Hindustan Times
20 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC, Centre spar over examining unopposed election of legislators
The Supreme Court and the Union government were at odds on Thursday on the issue of whether courts should examine the issue of 'unopposed' legislators getting an easy walk-through into Parliament and assemblies as the top court said the issue raises an interesting question worth examining while the Centre dismissed it as an 'academic' exercise not meriting interference by courts. The Supreme Court was considering this issue in a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, which threw up questions on whether the law allowing an unopposed candidate to enter Parliament or Assembly defeats the right of voters to choose their elected representatives or even exercise the option of NOTA provided by the court. (ANI) A bench headed by justice Surya Kant said, 'This issue slightly appears to be an extension of the NOTA principle. If there is only one candidate and electors don't want him to be elected through NOTA, that is a silent expression of the electorate which is an interesting question.' The none of the above (NOTA) option is provided by the Election Commission (EC) for voters who do not choose to endorse their support to any of the candidates in the fray. The bench, also comprising justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh, further deliberated, 'The election of unopposed candidate is not in the hands of the people. So, they may want to go and vote for NOTA as well. This is an issue which will require some examination.' The observations came after attorney general R Venkataramani, appearing for the Union government, informed the court that the Centre has reflected on the issue and found it to be an 'academic' question that need not be interfered with at the instance of the courts. He said: 'After 1991, there is hardly any instance of candidates getting elected unopposed. Why should the court go into such an academic question?' Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides for direct election of candidates in an uncontested election. The court was considering this issue in a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, which threw up questions on whether the law allowing an unopposed candidate to enter Parliament or Assembly defeats the right of voters to choose their elected representatives or even exercise the option of NOTA provided by the court. The petitioner disputed the Centre's version terming the issue 'academic' and mentioned 26 instances of unopposed or uncontested candidates making it to Parliament since 1952. Additional solicitor general (ASG) SD Sanjay, also appearing for Centre, pointed out going by the logic that if NOTA option is exercised against the lone candidate in fray, the elections would be countermanded. 'If fresh elections are to be held, same situation will again arise. There will be no end,' the ASG said. The bench replied, 'That situation won't arise as by the next election, all political parties will set up candidates.' Earlier this year, the court had sought a response from EC, which had said that no election had been decided with a majority of NOTA votes since 2013 when the Supreme Court directed this option to be provided on the electronic voting machines. It further stated that since the coming of the 1951 Act, there were only nine such instances. The petitioner argued that the issue can be decided for the future as voters cannot be deprived of choosing their elected representatives due to section 53(2) of the 1951 Act. In April, the court observed that any candidate getting elected should be able to get a minimum threshold of votes of his/her constituency, which could range from 5-15% of the total votes in the parliamentary/assembly segment. The court had then observed: 'We have to create a mechanism that may or may not be utilised. Keeping the growing trend and dimensions in the political field, there is a possibility of some affluent candidate getting elected unopposed when those who are contesting withdraw. Voters may suddenly realise they have no choice, and they cannot oppose as he will be elected. In such a situation, both EC and the voters are helpless.'
