—Iris Canor, Professor for European Law at School of Law, College of Management and at Zefat Academic College, Israel; Co-Head, The Center for Diversity in Law, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg
On 25 December 2025, the Israeli government introduced a series of amendments to its nomination guidelines governing senior, trust-based appointments in the civil service – notably Director Generals of ministries, with the aim of achieving adequate representation of women. These amendments were introduced to better integrate best practices for ensuring adequate representation, following a decision rendered by the Israeli Supreme Court ten months earlier. On 24 February 2025, the Court delivered a landmark ruling in HCJ 1363/23, Israel Women’s Network v. the Government of Israel. This case concerned the government’s duty to ensure adequate female representation in the highest positions within the executive branch. The petitioners, NGOs promoting gender equality, challenged the fact that dozens of men had been appointed to senior positions following the formation of the 37th government in January 2023, with almost no women among them. The Court held that entrenched legal norms that guarantee adequate gender representation can still fail, not because the principle itself is being contested, but because the procedural mechanisms needed to implement it are either absent or inadequate. The novelty of the Court’s judgment was two-fold. It underscored the advantages of guranteeing diveristy in government appointments. Additionally, it embedded the duty to appoint women into recommended best practice mechanisms. The new practices, introduced by the civil service, will be examined to determine their potential for success.
The Legal and Judicial Context Regarding the Adequate Representation of Women
The duty of adequate representation is anchored in Israeli legislation, including: Section 18A of the Government Companies Law, 5735 – 1975 (added in 1993); Section 15A of the Civil Service (Appointments) Law, 5719 – 1959 (added in 1995); Section 6C(a) of the Women’s Equal Rights Law 5711 – 1951 (added in 2000); and Section 15A of the Civil Service (Appointments) Law, (revised in 2000).
In 1994, in HCJ 453/94 — also known as the ‘First Israel Women’s Network Case’ — the Court clarified that ‘adequate representation’ does not require rigid quotas, but rather proportional representation determined by the nature and functions of the institution in question. The under-represented gender must be given priority, and those responsible for appointments must prove that appointing a woman was not possible despite genuine efforts. Despite this clear judicial framework, compliance has remained weak, prompting the petitioners to turn to the Court again, asking it to reduce the gap between the written law and reality.
The Government’s Justifications and the Court’s Responses
The petitioners argued that dozens of men were appointed to senior roles—Director-Generals of ministries and equivalent positions exempt from public tender—with almost no women among them. The Israeli government conceded that ‘the current situation does not meet the requirement of adequate representation’, yet advanced three justifications for its inability to guarantee adequate female representation.
The first of these involved ‘structural difficulty’: unlike with appointments to collegial bodies, such as boards of directors, where a proportion of positions can be reserved to ensure adequate representation, the appointment of a ministry director-general is made by each minister individually. Since each ministry only has one director-general, it is difficult to apply the adequate representation requirement. The Court rejected this argument, reaffirming that representation must be assessed both vertically (across grades within a ministry) and horizontally (across ministries at the same level). The fact that each director-general is appointed separately does not prevent the duty to ensure adequate representation from being met.
The second argument put forward by the government was the ‘Race to Appoint’: implementing adequate representation requirements could create an undesirable, arbitrary ‘race’ between ministers. Those who appoint early could secure their preferred candidate, while those who appoint later might be forced to choose the opposite gender solely due to prior appointments. The Court dismissed this, noting that the government could adopt clear, coordinated, non-arbitrary rules, including negotiated sequencing or centralised approval.
The final justification relied on was the ‘Trust relationship’: The close relationship between ministers and Director Generals requires unrestricted discretion in selecting candidates for appointment. This was possibly the strongest argument put forward by the government. While the Court acknowledged the importance of trust, it held that trust cannot override a statutory duty to ensure adequate representation.
The Novelty of the Judgment
The Supreme Court’s judgment was novel in two respects. First, it set out the advantages of diversity in public administration. Second, it required the government to embed adequate representation into binding internal procedures and identify best practice mechanisms.
First, the Court went beyond a formal equality analysis to articulate three concrete benefits of adequate representation of both genders, particularly in senior positions.
The first of these relates to improved decision-making processes. Diverse leadership mitigates groupthink, exposes blind spots and enhances responsiveness to public needs. It also increases creativity and the likelihood of ‘thinking outside the box’.
The second benefit identified is the pipeline effect: the Court explained that women in senior positions are more likely to appoint other women to similar roles and are less susceptible to bias. Consequently, there is a greater likelihood that such a senior woman will appoint an appropriate number of women to management positions below her. This increases the number of qualified women in senior roles, making it more likely that women will be appointed to these positions and creating a positive cycle rather than a vicious circle in which women are excluded from decision-making processes.
Lastly, the Court drew attention to the role-model effect: senior women serve as visible examples, helping junior women to overcome the ‘glass ceiling’ that limits their career prospects.
The Court reiterated the general principle that in ensuring adequate representation both a vertical and a horizontal analysis must be carried out. The former examines representation rates between genders at all levels within an office or unit, while the latter examines the proportion of women at a given level and professional grade across all offices and units. The detailed implementation of this principle was left to the executive.
Second, the Court (Justice Sohlberg, joined by Justices Barak, Erez and Kabub), criticised the government’s current guidelines, which require only token consideration (e.g. ‘interviewing one woman’), as mere ‘box-ticking’. While later proposals, such as interviewing equal numbers of men and women and consulting expert databases, were acknowledged as improvements, they were deemed insufficient as they lacked the potential to effect the necessary change in outcomes, and could still allow the minister to bypass the obligation to guarantee adequate representation. The Court has obliged the Government to fulfil its responsibility by adopting a procedure that includes setting and achieving targets.
Departing from past equality cases that focused on ex post remedies, the Court issued a forward-looking procedural decree. It required the government to adopt binding internal procedures within six months, emphasising that these procedures must be outcome-oriented rather than merely symbolic.
While not dictating the exact steps the government must take, the Court offered possible solutions for consideration. Ten months later, in December 2025, the government introduced a series of amendments to its nomination guidelines for new recruits, incorporating some of the best practices suggested by the Court. However, additional guidelines relating to positions in the offices of ministers and directors-general that are filled without tender have yet to be issued, and the government has requested and been granted a further extension by the Court.
The New Civil Service Commission Guidelines
The revised guidelines cover appointments to senior civil service roles that require the approval of the Appointments Committee (which is chaired by the Civil Service Commissioner and includes two public representatives with experience and expertise in public administration) and the Cabinet. Where women are underrepresented, the minister proposing an appointment must seriously consider appointing a woman and actively search for potential female candidates. However, if a man is put forward for the role, at least two women must be interviewed. and their CVs must be attached to the form to be submitted to the Appointments Committee. A reasoned explanation must also be provided, demonstrating that the issue of adequate representation was considered.
The appointing authority must satisfy four cumulative requirements: 1. Active outreach: proactive search via direct approaches, databases, placement consultants, civil society organisations and professional bodies. 2. Feasible outreach: outreach will only count if the female candidate is qualified and realistically available. Approaching an unqualified woman or someone who has already declined will not count as meeting the requirement. 3. Meaningful weighting: adequate representation must carry real weight alongside merit and trust. 4. Full documentation: All actions must be set out in the referral form to the Appointments Committee.
The legal adviser to the Civil Service Commission will provide the Appointments Committee with a legal opinion addressing any legal issues, including those relating to adequate representation.
The Committee must ensure compliance with the law on adequate representation, require corrections where effective outreach was lacking, examine ‘similar qualifications’ and representation data when a male candidate is proposed, and issue binding decisions rather than recommendations.
Decisions, reasoning and representation data will be published after appointment, unlike in the past. The Civil Service Commissioner will oversee compliance. Proposals to appoint female candidates receive priority scheduling. The preliminary proposal submitted to the government for their decision on the appointment will also note the staffing status in terms of adequate representation.
From Symbolic Equality to Enforceable Procedure: Institutional Gains Despite Partial Adoption
The guidelines faithfully implement the Court’s core recommendations and partially adopt Justice Barak-Erez’s more ambitious proposals, including encouraging interviews with more women than men for each position. First, the new requirments translate equality norms into verifiable administrative steps, substantially strengthening enforceability. Additionally, binding authority is a critical institutional upgrade and potentially prevents circumvention. Finally, transparency mechanisms enhance accountability and enable public monitoring.
The judgment reframed adequate representation as a process-driven obligation, shifting the focus from normative symbolism to enforcement. By linking equality to documentation, justification and transparency, the Court transformed abstract norms into operational duties. Other jurisdictions seeking to improve representation should focus on proceduralisation and not be satisfied with merely normative declarations. The ruling also emphasises institutional accountability, assigning collective responsibility to the Cabinet rather than dispersing it among individual ministries.
However, three significant measures endorsed by the Court were not adopted: The vertical reporting requirement – there is no obligation to report on women’s representation across senior ranks within each ministry; the Cabinet-level horizontal review – the Cabinet is not required to assess representation across ministries collectively; and the ‘zipper system’ – alternating appointments until parity is reached. Adopting these measures would have reduced discretionary power, mitigated unconscious bias, and provided a clear, time‑bound path toward balanced representation. The absence of these measures leaves room for continued reliance on case‑by‑case discretion and may slow the pace of structural change. Their adoption would likely have strengthened the transformative potential of the guidelines by addressing under‑representation not only procedurally, but systemically.
Conclusion
HCJ 1363/23 marks a turning point in Israeli administrative law and gender equality. It shows that equality norms do not fail because they lack legitimacy, but because they lack a solid implementation machinery. The Court’s response of requiring equality to be embedded in decision-making procedures offers a transferable model for jurisdictions facing similar gaps between formal law and lived reality. Whether the new guidelines will achieve sustained change depends on political will, oversight, and future judicial enforcement. The framework is now in place; its durability remains to be tested.
Suggested citation: Iris Canor, Adequate Representation of Women in the Israeli Civil Service — From ‘Law in the Books’ to ‘Law in Practice’: New Governmental Guidelines Following the Israeli Court’s Ruling on Best Practices, Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, Jan. 31, 2026, at: http://www.iconnectblog.com/adequate-representation-of-women-in-the-israeli-civil-service-from-law-in-the-books-to-law-in-practice-new-governmental-guidelines-following-the-israeli-courts-ruling-on-best-prac/