The Constitutional Court has ordered a delay in the case concerning barcode ballots, awaiting expert opinions, and has unanimously decided to reject Direk's petition challenging the Senate election.
On 15 July 2026, the Constitutional Court convened to deliberate on two key matters. The first agenda was case number Tor 30/2569, concerning a petition filed by the Ombudsman under Article 213 of the Constitution after receiving 22 complaints. These complaints arose from the Election Commission's organization of the general House of Representatives election on 8 February 2026, which involved printing ballots with barcodes and QR codes. The petitioner argued that these codes might allow identification and verification of voters and their votes, compromising the secrecy of the ballot and violating several constitutional provisions. The Constitutional Court considered the matter and ordered a postponement of the decision to await expert witness opinions and requested the Court Secretariat to conduct further studies to assist in their consideration.
In the second matter, the Constitutional Court unanimously resolved to reject the petition filed by Mr. Direk Pornsima, a former Senate candidate, who requested a ruling under Article 213 that the Election Commission and its Secretary-General’s conduct of the district and provincial Senate elections was not secret, honest, fair, and violated rights and freedoms.
The Constitutional Court reasoned that if the petitioner believes their rights were violated, they may pursue other legal remedies under Article 25, paragraph three of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Constitution-related law specifies a particular process and channel for challenging Senate elections, as outlined in the Constitutional Court Procedure Act B.E. 2561 (2018), Section 47(2). According to Section 46, paragraph three, the court must dismiss such petitions. Therefore, the petitioner does not have the right to file a petition under Article 213. The court unanimously decided to dismiss the petition.