Bangkok: Nakarin Mektrirat, the President of the Constitutional Court, has clarified the court's position on the ongoing ballot barcode case. He stated that if clear explanations are provided, a hearing may not be necessary. The court is currently waiting for the Election Commission and the Ombudsman to submit evidence and clarifications regarding the matter.

According to Thai News Agency, Nakarin emphasized the importance of submitting comprehensive statements and witness lists to facilitate the court's decision-making process. The court has accepted the case and is giving both parties time to present their evidence. Nakarin explained that the necessity of a hearing will depend on the clarity of the submitted explanations. If the witness lists include individuals, they will be questioned by the court. In cases where explanations are submitted in writing and are fully comprehensible, a hearing may be avoided. However, if the explanations remain unclear, the judges may then decide to conduct a hearing.

Nakarin further explained that the court's decision on whether the ballot papers will remain secret is contingent on the law and the discretion of the judges involved. He highlighted that the court's opinion is a collective decision made by all nine judges empowered by the Constitution. These judges possess independent discretion, and their rulings are based on constitutional powers and duties.

When questioned about the possibility of the election being invalidated due to the ballot barcode issue, Nakarin stated that he could not comment until all evidence is reviewed. He expressed curiosity about the Ombudsman's approach to naming witnesses, given the volume of complaints, and emphasized the importance of seeing all submitted evidence. The Election Commission, too, must consider its list of witnesses carefully, he added.

Nakarin also addressed the question of whether political science principles would influence the court's decision, especially in light of the ongoing government formation and Middle East conflicts. He asserted that the ruling would be strictly based on the Constitution, which inherently includes political science and legal principles. However, the application of these principles depends on the current constitutional framework.

Lastly, Nakarin requested that facts related to a mock election organized by the public, which aimed to demonstrate the traceability of barcodes back to voters, be officially brought before the court. He stressed that such external facts need to be incorporated into the judicial process for consideration.