Bangkok: The parties involved in the election ballot barcode case have been granted an extension of 15 days to submit evidence. The President of the Constitutional Court has announced this extension, emphasizing that no more than three further extensions will be permitted. This case is separate from the polling booth turning case.

According to Thai News Agency, Constitutional Court President Nakarin Mektrirat discussed the progress of the barcode case on the ballot papers, noting the importance of hearing both sides. Currently, the case is in the evidence submission stage, with the petitioner (the Ombudsman) and the respondent (the Election Commission) both requesting and receiving a 15-day extension to submit evidence.

The panel of judges has agreed to allow extensions no more than 2-3 times, each lasting 15 days. The reasons for each extension request will be reviewed as part of the established process. Mr. Nakarin also mentioned that once all necessary evidence is submitted, the panel will determine if witness overlap exists or if further clarification from nominated witnesses is needed.

Speculation about the outcome, such as a potential 5-4 vote, was addressed by Mr. Nakarin, who emphasized the independence of each judge and the panel. He clarified that this barcode case is distinct from previous cases involving incorrect polling booth orientation, though past instances might still be reviewed.

Constitutional Court Justice Udom Sittivirachatham noted that changing facts could alter the ruling. Mr. Nakarin expressed no concerns regarding the barcode case timeline, explaining that the longest case consideration took 11 months and this should not exceed that duration.

On the topic of election secrecy, Mr. Nakarin stated that the committee would discuss the differences between overtly confidential and investigatively obtained information. Both sides are expected to submit witness statements and evidence, including how the evidence was obtained, before further joint discussions.

The government will continue its operations as usual since the judiciary and executive branches function independently. While the judiciary adjudicates cases, the executive branch must maintain its daily operations, similar to executive branches worldwide. The courts, however, focus on casework rather than daily operations.