The Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court revealed that the barcode ballot case must wait for the Election Commission and Ombudsman to submit evidence. He pointed out that whether the ballots are secret depends on legal provisions. He affirmed that the court cannot initiate cases by itself concerning individuals lacking qualifications to serve as ministers, emphasizing that formal complaints must follow procedural channels. He viewed political parties' caution regarding ethics as a positive development.
On 30 Mar 2026 at 09:00 at the Divana Plaza Hotel, Krabi, Nakharin Mektrairat, Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, commented on the progress of the ballot case, stating that the court must wait for explanations from both parties. The court has accepted the case and must allow the Election Commission and Ombudsman time to submit statements, witness lists, and evidence for the court's review. He could not yet say if a hearing would be held. Once the court receives explanations from both sides, if witness lists include individuals, the court will question those persons. If their written explanations are clear, a hearing may not be necessary. However, if unclear, judges may request a hearing. If evidence is non-personal, such as tapes or electronic devices, the court may or may not hold hearings depending on the case. Therefore, no advance decision could be given.
Asked whether the ballot case could invalidate the election, Nakharin said he could not answer until seeing the evidence. He preferred evidence be submitted to the court. If both the Ombudsman and Election Commission present evidence, the court will examine it. The Ombudsman must decide which witnesses to call, which may be challenging given many complaints received. If no witnesses are submitted, the matter ends. Similarly, the Election Commission must decide their witnesses. The court will then decide whether to proceed. Additional evidence may be requested depending on what is submitted. Currently, the court has some ideas but cannot comment until evidence from both sides is reviewed.
Regarding whether ballots are secret, Nakharin said that depends on the law. The judges have not yet discussed this issue because the court’s view is not that of an individual but of all nine judges empowered by the constitution. The court is an institution established by the constitution, functioning under constitutional and organic constitutional law powers, with all nine judges exercising independent discretion. After hearing the facts, each judge will use their judgment. Thus, whether ballots are secret is a matter of individual judicial determination.
When asked if evidence from a civil society group’s mock election proving barcodes can trace voters would be considered by the court, Nakharin said such facts have not yet been presented to the court. The court has never received this before. Facts originating outside the court should be submitted into the court process for consideration.
Asked whether political science principles would be considered, given claims that forming a government and the Middle East conflict might deter the court from annulling the election, Nakharin affirmed that the court judges strictly according to the constitution. The constitution itself incorporates political science and legal principles, which together form the current constitution’s balanced framework.
Nakharin also addressed media questions about the new government using ethical standards as a main criterion to screen ministers, whereas previous governments had ministers who seemed unqualified but served regardless. He explained this is a new constitutional evolution: ethics is newly included in the current constitution, unlike the 2007 constitution. Some provisions, like party dissolution, have been removed. The current court dissolves fewer parties because the Election Commission can now dissolve parties immediately for false political fund use without court involvement, reducing party dissolutions compared to before.
The Chief Justice said regarding why problematic individuals become ministers, this is his personal view but no complaint has been filed with the court. The court cannot initiate cases or act independently. It cannot instruct the court secretary to file cases on its own. If media or the public have concerns, they must file complaints to the Constitutional Court following constitutional procedures. Such complaints about ministerial qualifications must follow prescribed channels and cannot be filed by just anyone.
“Therefore, the answer is that previously individuals could serve because no one filed complaints to the Constitutional Court, so the court could not act. We cannot decide on our own. The Constitutional Court operates passively, not actively. It cannot act independently because the country is governed by rules involving the executive and legislative branches. The court is a judicial body deciding disputes after they arise. It must be an actual dispute, not just suspicion. I cannot suspect you; there must be a conflict that cannot be resolved amicably. If it cannot be resolved, it goes to the justice system, to the court. So, if no case comes to the court, it cannot adjudicate.” Nakharin said.
Nakharin added that the current administration’s caution is a positive step. It is good to be careful because these issues might lead to complaints filed with the court.