May 2026: Supreme Court upholds 6-year-sentence in Section 112 case against Tiwagon for wearing a shirt stating “I lost faith in the monarchy,” while case against Thanathorn dismissed

May 2026 saw no new cases concerning public assembly and political expression over the last two months. Nonetheless, of 1,346 cases in which members of the public have been indicted, 523 cases are pending in various stages of the judicial process and cases are seeing constant rulings each month.

However, it is projected that in the latter half of 2026, there shall be an escalation of cases filed against members of the public and media for posts criticizing government officials, demanding vetting of qualifications, or calling for scrutiny into the performance of duties. As a result, they are often held liable for defamation by publication by local politicians, the “Big Families” in influential provinces.

In May 2026, courts ruled on seven cases concerning public assembly and political expression, including four Section 112 cases. Three of these cases were dismissed:

The Court of First Instance dismissed the Section 112 case against Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit following his Facebook live broadcast, “Royal Vaccine: Who Stands to Gain or Lose.” The Court deemed the broadcast was mere criticism of the General Prayut Chan-ocha government regarding his handling of COVID-19 vaccine procurement.
The Court of Appeal also dismissed the Section 116 case against “Pan” Katanyu, finding there was no evidence definitively proving the defendant posted the alleged messages on the Thalu Fah Facebook page.
The Court of Appeal overturned the verdict in the case against Ekanan for violating the Air Navigation Act by flying a drone to photograph the #FreePeople assembly on 16 August 2020. The Court cited the expiration of the statute of limitations.

In the remaining four cases:

The Supreme Court upheld the Section 112 conviction against Tiwagon for wearing a shirt stating “I lost faith in the monarchy” and for posting to demand the monarchy stop using Section 112 and release four core members of the Ratsadon movement.
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction against “Get” Sophon for speeches during the #TourMuLaPhua assembly, but revised the sentence under the Advertisement by Using Sound Amplifiers Control Act to three years of imprisonment and a 200 baht administrative fine.
In the Section 112 case against Piyarat for installing a banner criticizing the government’s monopolization of COVID-19 vaccine distribution, the Court of Appeal Region 4 overturned the Court of First Instance’s acquittal and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment without suspension.
The Court of Appeal upheld verdict of the Court of First Instance against two members of the Nonthaburi New Generation Work for allegedly arranging a truck with a sound system to participate in the #RatchaprasaongRepealing112. The Court upheld the previous verdict sentencing them to one month of imprisonment and a fine of 10,000 THB under the Emergency Decree, while suspending the prison sentence for one year.

Over the past month, bail applications were submitted for Jatupat Boonpattararaksa, Atthaphon Buaphat, Arnon Nampha (9 cases) and Phromson Wirathamchari, all of which were rejected by the courts. As a result, all of them remain detained.

According to the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights’ documentation, since the “Free Youth” assembly on 18 July 2020 until 31 May 2026, at least 1,997 individuals have been charged for participating in public assemblies or expressing their political opinions in 1,346 cases.

Compared to the statistics in the past three months until April 2026, there have been no new cases (counting only cases in which the suspects have been charged by the police official and excluding defamation cases filed by politicians against members of the public in various areas.)

Altogether, there have been at least 4,076 prosecutions against the individuals although some of them are charged for multiple offences.

Prosecution statistics in key offences:

1. Section 112 (lèse-majesté) of the Criminal Code: at least 291 individuals in 321 cases ( at least 169 cases of which have stemmed from reports to the police made by members of the public.)

2. Section 116 (sedition) of the Criminal Code: at least 157 individuals in 57 cases

3. Violation of the Emergency Decree: at least 1,466 individuals in 678 cases

4. Violation of the Public Assembly Act: at least 202 individuals in 111 cases

5. Violation of the Computer Crimes Act: at least 222 individuals in 243 cases

6. Contempt of court: at least 45 individuals in 27 cases, and insult of the court, at least 37 individuals in 11 cases

Of 1,346 cases, 823 cases have reached their final verdicts (although some cases remain outstanding since certain defendants decided to appeal the verdicts).

Prosecution trends in May 2026 and key events:

May 2026: Supreme Court upholds six-year-sentence in Section 112 case against Tiwagon, while “Piyarat” and “Sophon” sentenced to three years

In May 2026, courts issued rulings in at least seven cases concerning public assembly and political expression. Four of these cases involve Section 112.

Regarding rulings on Section 112 cases, one was made by the Court of First Instance, two by the Court of Appeal, and one by the Supreme Court, as detailed below:

Tiwagon Withiton was brought from prison to hear the Supreme Court’s verdict without any advance notification. Withiton faces charges for his social media posts, which included photos of him wearing a shirt printed with “I lost faith in the monarchy,” as well as commentary demanding the monarchy to stop using Section 112 and release four core members of the Ratsadon movement. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the Court of Appeal Region 4 to imprison Mr. Withiton for six years without suspension. The Court also revised the verdict to order the confiscation of the seized t-shirt, ending the case that had lasted more than four years. Mr. Withiton has been incarcerated for 632 days and has four years left in his sentence.

The Court of Appeal Region 4 overturned the Court of First Instance’s acquittal of Piyarat “Toto” Chongthep for erecting a banner criticizing the government’s monopolization of COVID-19 vaccine distribution. The prosecutor had appealed the case. The Court of Appeal found that although none of the prosecution witnesses could prove it was the defendant who erected the banner, circumstantial evidence established that Mr. Chongthep and others brought the banner and installed it at the crime scene. Additionally, the Court found that Mr. Chongthep posted the message [what message?] on Facebook. Mr. Chongthep was sentenced to three years of imprisonment without suspension. He posted 300,000 THB for bail and was barred from traveling outside the country pending appeal at the Supreme Court.

In the case against Sophon “Get” Surariddhidhamrong for making speeches during the #TourMuLaPhua assembly at the Democracy Monument on 22 April 2022, previously, he was convicted and sentenced to six months in prison by the Court of First Instance for unauthorized use of amplifier, even though according to the law, the punishment for such offence is a fine not exceeding 200 baht. The Court of Appeal found that the six-month-sentence imposed by the Court of First Instance for unauthorized use of amplifier exceeded the penalty provided for by law and was therefore unlawful. The Court nonetheless upheld the guilty verdict under Section 112. The sentence was then revised to three years of imprisonment and 200 THB of administrative fine. Mr. Surariddhidhamrong has been incarcerated for over two years and eight months.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Section 112 case against Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit for his 18 January 2021 Facebook Live broadcast, “Royal Vaccine: Who Stands to Gain or Lose,” in which he criticized the General Prayut Chan-ocha government’s handling of COVID-19 vaccine procurement. The Court reasoned that in order to determine what constitutes an offence under Section 112, it is necessary to consider all the statements as a whole rather than singling out certain statements. The Court concluded that Mr. Juangroongruangkit merely criticized the General Prayut Chan-ocha government for its handling of COVID-19 vaccine management. (Mr. Juangroongruangkit has hired his own legal team to defend himself.)

According to TLHR’s documentation, rulings have been issued in at least 218 cases under Section 112 since 2020. The number of defendants who pleaded guilty slightly exceeds the number of those pleading guilty, precisely 20 cases.

Court of Appeal rules in three assembly-related cases, acquitting “Pan” Katanyu in Section 116 case and “Ekanan” for flying drone; upholds suspended sentence against “Nine-Ple” in Emergency Decree case

The Court of Appeal issued at least three other rulings in cases concerning political assembly and political expression, as detailed below:

The Court of Appeal overturned the guilty verdict against Katanyu “Pan” Muankhamrueang in a sedition (Section 116) case related to the two posts on Thalu Fah’s Facebook page, which invited participants in assemblies in August 2021. The Court concluded that there was no evidence to prove Ms. Muankhamrueang was the admin of the Facebook page or responsible for posting the relevant messages. The Court also found that the prosecution’s evidence regarding the defendant’s presence at the assembly was hearsay and lacking of sufficient probative value to conclude that the person appearing on the image was the defendant. Furthermore, the Court found that the defendant’s alleged presence in the political demonstration was not related to the commission of the offence on the date and time indicated in the complaint.

The Court of Appeal acquitted Ekanan Danphetdamrong of violating the Air Navigation Act B.E. 2547 for flying drones to photograph the #FreePeople assembly on 16 August 2020 at the Democracy Monument. The Court of First Instance previously fined Mr. Danphetdamrong 5,000 THB, but the Court of Appeal found that the statute of limitations had expired in the case.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Court of First Instance’s verdict against “Nine” and “Ple” from the Nonthaburi New Generation Network for violating the Emergency Decree and possessing a radio transceiver without permission. Nine and Ple allegedly arranged a truck with a sound system to participate in the #RatchaprasongRepealing112, also known as #Mob31Oct21 at the Ratchaprasong intersection. The Court of Appeal upheld the Court of First Instance’s finding that the defendants were not organizers of the assembly. However, the Court of Appeal found that the gathering of more than 50 people without permission, in an area designated as a highest control area constituted an offence under the Emergency Decree. The Court of Appeals sentenced each of the defendants to one month in jail and a fine of 10,000 THB, while suspending the prison sentence for one year.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Court of First Instance’s verdict finding even though they were not organizers of the assembly, but since more than 50 persons were gathered in an area designated as highest control area without permission, it was therefore an offence against the Emergency Decree and sentenced them each to one month in jail and 10,000-baht-fine, albeit the prison sentence was suspended for one year.

Attempts to post bail for political prisoners pending trial rejected

Jatupat “Pai” Boonpattararaksa and Atthaphon “Khru Yai” Buaphat submitted bail applications in relation to the #19SeptReturnPowerToThePeople protest case, which remains pending before the Court of First Instance and has yet to proceed to judgment. The Court again denied bail. In Jatupat’s case, this was the only remaining case for which he remained subject to a detention order, as the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal Region 4 had already granted him bail in all other cases.
The Court of Appeal dismissed bail applications by Arnon Nampa in relation to nine pending Section 112 cases. The applications emphasized that the conduct underlying the charges constituted the exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly in support of a democratic transition from military-backed rule to a democratically elected government. The bail applications were filed amid the backdrop marked by the Department of Conditions had paroled Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra, and the Myanmar authorities have also released a number of political prisoners. Meanwhile, Mr. Nampa has served more than two months and eight years in jail.
The Supreme Court also rejected the bail application of Phromson “Fah” Wirathamchari while his case remains under the Court’s review. He has been incarcerated since 9 March 2026 for allegedly participating in a public assembly at the Khlong Luang Police Station on 14 January 2021. The Court rejected his third bail application, stating there was no reason to alter the previous order.

Therefore, in May 2026, none of the inmates were granted the right to bail while their cases remained pending.

Trend of SLAPP cases filed by politicians against members of the public and media for defamation: The case against Kowit – “Maywadee”, preliminary hearings completed, Court to rule in June 2026

During the first half of 2026, there was an increasing trend of criminal defamation complaints against members of the public and journalists who posted comments criticizing politicians, calling for scrutiny of their qualifications, or monitoring and questioning their performance in office. Many of these cases were initiated by local politicians, the “Big Families” in influential provinces including Phayao, Chonburi, and Roi Et.

Most of the affected members of the public and media are not domiciles or residents of the area where they are indicted. This imposes a burden on the defendants by forcing them to travel afar and expend time and resources to fight the charges. In certain cases, the plaintiffs may withdraw the case or have the case thrown out of court after making an offer [such as an apology or retraction?] and acquiring concessions.

Such litigations fall under Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), in which the justice process is used not to achieve the natural outcome of the case, but to impose a burden on the defendants and create a chilling effect on freedom of expression across media and society.

In the past month, TLHR has provided assistance in at least three such cases, including those against “Maywadee” and Kowit, which had preliminary hearings, and “Apple” Supaporn, who was recently indicted.

1.“Maywadee” (pseudonym), a Burapha University student, has been sued by Ratchanee Pholsue, former president of the Roi Et Provincial Administrative Organization and currently a Member of Parliament for Roi Et under the Kla Tham Party, on charges of defamation by publication. The case stems from her social media post about other legal cases against the Pholsue family. During the preliminary hearing in May 2026, two prosecution witnesses were examined, and the Ro Et Provincial Court will rule on whether the case will proceed to trial on 16 June 2026.

2. Similarly, in the case against Kowit Phothisan, Thai Editor, The Isaan Record, brought to court by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Natural Resources and Environment Suchart Chomklin for defamation by publication stemming from his sharing of a post by Hathairat Phaholthap, Executive Editor from the same news outlet, regarding the alleged graft related to the recruitment of Thai workers to pick berries in Finland, following the preliminary hearing, the Court will rule on 8 June 2026 if it is a prima facie case and whether it will proceed to a trial or not.

On 8 June 2026, The Chonburi Provincial Court dismissed the case, finding that Mr. Pothisan’s act of sharing a post concerned the matter of public interest and was not carried out with the intention of harassing or defaming the plaintiff. Rather, it was done solely to seek justice and serve as a voice for the public. The Court therefore found insufficient grounds to conclude that Mr. Pothisan had committed the offence of defamation by publication.

3. Supaporn “Apple” Pothisri faces prosecution in Phayao Provincial Court for defamation by publication for her social media post criticizing the qualification of Captain Thammanat Prompao. Ms. Pothisri was allowed to post bail on her own recognizance.

Criminal Court allows “Korn,” traditional Thai dance teacher and defendant in Section 112 case, to remove EM device, after having to wear it for one year and eight months, leading to pressure sores on his ankles and loss of income from performing

On 25 May 2026, the 31-year-old traditional Thai dance teacher “Korn” (pseudonym) from Chianat went to the Criminal Court to have the EM device removed. He had been wearing it as part of bail conditions while undergoing trial in the Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal on accusations of violating Section 112 following his commentary under a post with a portrait of King Rama X in the “KTUK-Khon Thai UK” Facebook Page in 2021.

The Criminal Court granted the defendant’s application to have his EM device removed after having to wear it for more than one year and eight months, which negatively impacted his body and career.

Read about the state of freedom of expression, right to justice process and political prisoners in our joint UPR submission

TLHR , Freedom Bridge, and International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) submitted a stakeholders report as part of Thailand’s upcoming Universal Periodic Review (UPR) before the U.N. Human Rights Council. The report features human rights issues, including freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, Section 112 prosecution, the right to fair trial, and political prisoners.

The report demonstrates how freedom of expression and assembly continue to face severe restrictions in Thailand, particularly through Section 112 cases, which have a statistically high conviction rate of 83 percent. The report notes how cases have been tactically reported to the police in remote areas. It further describes the use of SLAPP cases, as well as the deployment of spyware to surveillance activists.

Courts routinely deny bail to political prisoners using similar justifications. Courts have also imposed gag orders on those granted bail, thereby restricting the fundamental rights of defendants. Meanwhile, incarceration conditions remain extremely poor due to overcrowding, as well as lack of proper medical treatment, which led to the death of “Bung” Netiporn [in 2024?]. Certain prisons have also impeded defendants’ access to legal counsel.

The report therefore recommends amendments to Sections 112, 116, 326, and 328 of the Penal Code; the Computer Crimes Act; and the Public Assembly Act to ensure compliance with international human rights standards. The report additionally recommends that Thailand immediately release all political prisoners and drop charges against them. Thailand should also adopt, through Parliament, a comprehensive amnesty law, guarantee fair trial rights, and improve incarceration conditions in compliance with international standards.