Bangkok: The court has instructed "Dr. Wayo" to amend his lawsuit against the Election Commission regarding the QR code on the election ballot.
According to Thai News Agency, the court has also directed the Election Commission to clarify three critical issues by April 24: the meaning of "secret ballot," the authority to include symbols, and whether the ballots can be traced back. Dr. Wayo sees this as a positive indication and anticipates a decision on the lawsuit's acceptance by June 24.
Dr. Wayo Asavarungruang, deputy leader of the People's Party, accompanied by the party's legal team, attended the Central Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct to hear the preliminary ruling. The People's Party and four others have filed a lawsuit against the Election Commission (EC) and nine others, accusing them of criminal offenses related to corruption and misconduct.
Following the court's decision, Dr. Wayo revealed that the plaintiff has been ordered to amend specific points in the complaint, particularly concerning the special intent under Section 157. The court has allowed for the inclusion of relevant laws or regulations to complete the complaint within 30 days.
Additionally, the court has instructed the Election Commission to clarify initial facts by April 24, 2026, addressing three questions:
1. What does "secret ballot" mean under the 2017 Constitution?
2. What authority does the Election Commission have to include symbols on the ballot paper, and do these symbols indicate the chosen candidate or political party?
3. If the symbol is traceable, what processes, rules, or conditions exist for verification?
The court has not yet decided to accept the case for trial but is exercising its authority under the Supreme Court President's Regulations of 2017 to request further clarification from the opposing party.
Dr. Wayo perceives the order as a positive sign, suggesting that if the court permits amendments and full compliance, it is more likely to accept the case rather than dismiss it immediately. The next hearing is scheduled for June 24, 2026, at which point clarity on the court's acceptance of the case is expected. Plaintiffs can file objections to the Election Commission's clarification by June 17, 2026.
Regarding the Election Commission's clarification of "secret balloting," Dr. Wayo mentioned that they had already referenced the Constitution's intent from a document of the Secretariat of the House of Representatives. However, they still await the source the EC will use to clarify matters to the court.
Despite the Constitutional Court's earlier acceptance of a related petition concerning QR codes and barcodes, these remain separate cases. Mr. Saeng Boonmee, Secretary-General of the Election Commission, previously confirmed the election's secret conduct in an interview, but this was merely an opinion. For court clarifications, evidence and legal arguments are necessary.
Politically, the case in the Anti-Corruption Court is unlikely to have a direct impact due to the lengthy trial process. In contrast, the Constitutional Court holds the power to make rulings that could affect election status. If deemed invalid, it would necessitate a new election with significant political implications.
If new facts emerge from the Constitutional Court's ruling, the plaintiffs may use them as supporting evidence in this case. All parties are currently awaiting the Election Commission's clarification within the court-set timeframe.