Hakim v Minister of the Interior
| Jurisdiction | Israel |
| Date | 07 July 1952 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 125 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Israel) |
(Cheshin, Assaf and Zussman JJ.).
Enemy Character — Of Nationals — Refusal of Entry Visa on Security Grounds — Intercourse with the Enemy — Locus standi in judicio — Arab of Palestinian Origin Residing in Lebanon — Lebanon and Israel — Lebanon as Enemy State.
The Facts.—The applicant for an order of mandamus, and her family, were Arabs resident in Israel. One of the applicant's sons was a student of the American University of Beirut from the year 1944 and frequently visited his mother, particularly during the vacation. In September 1947, he returned from Palestine to Lebanon legally. In the summer of 1950 he returned illegally to Israel, and after he was caught he was returned to Lebanon. In 1951 he completed his studies, and his mother submitted a number of applications to the Ministry of Immigration for permission for him to return. These requests were not granted and the present proceedings were instituted by the mother for an order calling upon the respondent to show cause why an entry visa into Israel should not be given to the son and why he should not be permitted to reside in Israel permanently.
Held: that the order nisi must be discharged. Although the son had formally been a Palestinian citizen and was legally residing abroad, he could not now be regarded as an Israel citizen entitled to return to Israel and reside there permanently. The Court said (per Cheshin J.):
“The principal argument of Counsel for the applicant was that the son was a Palestinian citizen who was temporarily resident abroad for lawful purposes and since, after the establishment of the State of Israel, he became automatically an Israel citizen, by virtue of section 15 (d) of the Law of Administration Ordinance, 1948 (by which ‘“Palestine” wherever appearing in any Law, shall henceforth be read as “Israel”’) the respondent is legally bound to permit him, as a citizen, to return to Israel.
“This argument raises a number of serious constitutional questions, such as the extent of the civic rights of the citizen when he is abroad and the legal validity of the citizenship and immigration laws enacted in the period of the Mandate in the light of the modifications which may result from the establishment of the State and its authorities. However, before discussing these aspects we should first consider the principal answer of Mr. Kokia, Counsel for the respondent, because if that argument is accepted, then there is no point in considering the other arguments. Mr. Kokia argued that the applicant has no locus standi in this case since the...
To continue reading
Request your trial