In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court adjudicated a dispute regarding the disclosure of identities of petitioners who filed a petition against the head of the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet), David Zini. As reported by Channel 13, the petition was filed by a group of former agency employees who sought full anonymity throughout the legal proceedings. The justices held that there is no legal basis allowing petitioners to conceal their names from a respondent, especially when the respondent possesses appropriate security clearance to address petitions filed against him.
The court clarified that filing a legal petition is not equivalent to an anonymous online appeal, as making serious allegations requires accountability and guarantees the respondent's right to know who is opposing them. During the proceedings, Zini's counsel, Adv. Yaakov Kerem, argued that it is unacceptable for litigants to act on their own and refuse to identify themselves. Conversely, the petitioners' attorney, Adv. Eitan Peleg, argued that his clients' concerns stemmed from the potential for retaliation by the agency chief.
During the hearing, Zini requested that the court find the petitioners in contempt for refusing to identify themselves; however, the court noted that no prior order had compelled them to do so, and thus the contempt claim was rejected. Nevertheless, the ruling was unequivocal regarding Zini’s right to review the list of names. Alongside the substantive ruling, the court adopted a conciliatory approach. The justices noted that because the petition had been withdrawn, it would be appropriate for the Shin Bet chief to consider waiving his demand for the list as a gesture of goodwill.
This approach aims to facilitate future professional cooperation, as the petitioners hold knowledge relevant to the agency’s work. Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit expressed the opinion during the hearings that the agency head would be wise to show flexibility. Justices David Mintz and Noam Sohlberg also emphasized that every litigant has a natural right to know the identity of their accuser. The case highlights the delicate balance between the right of employees to criticize their superiors and the principles of natural justice and transparency in legal proceedings, even within sensitive security organizations.