Article 231: Privileged and Confidential Evidence
Statutory text (Thai original)
เมื่อคู่ความหรือผู้ใดจะต้องให้การหรือส่งพยานหลักฐานอย่างหนึ่งอย่างใดดังต่อไปนี้
(๑) เอกสารหรือข้อความที่ยังเป็นความลับในราชการอยู่
(๒) เอกสารหรือข้อความลับ ซึ่งได้มาหรือทราบเนื่องในอาชีพหรือหน้าที่ของเขา
(๓) วิธีการ แบบแผนหรืองานอย่างอื่นซึ่งกฎหมายคุ้มครองไม่ยอมให้เปิดเผย คู่ความหรือบุคคลนั้นมีอำนาจไม่ยอมให้การหรือส่งพยานหลักฐาน เว้นแต่ได้รับอนุญาตจากเจ้าหน้าที่หรือบุคคลที่เกี่ยวข้องกับความลับนั้นถ้าคู่ความหรือบุคคลใดไม่ยอมให้การ หรือไม่ส่งพยานหลักฐานดังกล่าวแล้ว ศาลมีอำนาจหมายเรียกเจ้าหน้าที่หรือบุคคลผู้เกี่ยวข้องกับความลับนั้นมาแถลงต่อศาล เพื่อวินิจฉัยว่าการไม่ยอมนั้นมีเหตุผลค้ำจุนหรือไม่ ถ้าเห็นว่าไร้เหตุผล ให้ศาลบังคับให้ ๆ การหรือส่งพยานหลักฐานนั้น
English translation
When a party or any person is required to give testimony or to produce any of the following evidence: (1) a document or statement that is still an official secret; (2) a confidential document or statement obtained or known in the course of his profession or duty; (3) a method, formula, or other work that the law protects from disclosure; such party or person has the power to refuse to give testimony or to produce the evidence, unless permission is obtained from the official or person concerned with that secret. If a party or any person refuses to give testimony or to produce such evidence, the court has the power to summon the official or person concerned with that secret to make a statement to the court, in order to determine whether the refusal is supported by reason. If the court considers that it is without reason, the court shall order the giving of the testimony or the production of that evidence.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified. Always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 231 codifies evidentiary privilege for three categories: official secrets, professional or duty-based confidences, and legally protected methods or works such as trade secrets. It sits in Book 5 General Principles and gives the holder a qualified right to withhold testimony or evidence, defeasible by consent of the person entitled to the secret. Crucially, the privilege is not absolute for the court: where a party refuses, the court may summon the person concerned with the secret to explain, and may order production if the refusal lacks reason. It thus balances confidentiality against the court's truth-finding function, and rulings under it are interlocutory orders not separately appealable during trial under Section 196.
Why this matters in practice
If you are asked to disclose confidential official, professional, or proprietary information, this section lets you decline unless the person entitled to the secret consents. But the court can test your refusal by summoning that person and can order disclosure if it finds no good reason to withhold. Practically, a court's ruling that a document need not yet be produced is an interlocutory order, which cannot be appealed separately during the trial. If your case involves sensitive records, discuss with your lawyer how to assert or challenge privilege before the evidence stage.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 2689/2560 (2017)
Section 231 lets a party or other person required to testify or to produce evidence refuse where the material is a document or statement that is still an official secret, a confidence obtained in the course of a profession or duty, or a method or formula the law protects from disclosure. Here the court of first instance held an inquiry under Section 231 and ruled that the members of the National Anti-Corruption Commission need not produce the summoned documents, and it treated an appeal against that order as barred by Section 196. The Supreme Court did not reach the point: sitting in plenary session 16/2559 it held that a private plaintiff has no power to prosecute Commission members in the ordinary courts at all, because the Organic Acts route such cases to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions.
The plaintiff had asked the trial court to summon documents from the defendants, and after an inquiry the court ordered that they need not produce them yet. The Supreme Court, in plenary session (16/2559), decided the case on a different ground: the plaintiff had no power to bring a charge against the second to eighth defendants, commissioners of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, in the ordinary court, because the Organic Acts give a special route to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions. The Court of Appeal had rightly dismissed the application, and it was unnecessary to decide the plaintiff's other grounds, including the one about the order on production of documents.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 1 Supreme Court decisions (2017 to 2017)
Décisions de citation sélectionnées
- Decision 2689/2560 (2017)
Cette liste est sélectionnée automatiquement, en privilégiant les jugements qui reposent sur cet article plutôt que sur ceux qui se contentent de le citer lors du prononcé de la peine. Elle n'a pas encore été examinée par le cabinet.
Calculé sur l'ensemble du corpus de 83 652 décisions de la Cour suprême du cabinet, de 1921 à 2026. Le décompte est exhaustif ; la plage d'années indiquée élimine les valeurs aberrantes rares afin de refléter la répartition réelle des citations. Ces chiffres sont calculés par nos soins et ne constituent pas des statistiques officielles de la Cour. Comment nous les comptons et ce que nous avons mesuré
Foire aux questions
Un témoin peut-il refuser de divulguer des informations confidentielles devant un tribunal ?
Oui, pour les secrets d'État, les informations confidentielles liées à une obligation professionnelle ou professionnelle, ou les méthodes protégées par la loi en vertu de l'article 231, sauf si la personne ayant droit au secret y consent. Toutefois, le tribunal peut convoquer cette personne et ordonner la divulgation si le refus est injustifié.
Qui décide de la validité du refus ?
Le tribunal. En vertu de l'article 231, il peut convoquer le fonctionnaire ou la personne concernée par le secret pour qu'elle s'explique, et s'il constate que le refus est sans motif, il ordonne le témoignage ou la production des preuves.
Citer cette section
-
Citation simple
Criminal Procedure Code, s. 231 (Thailand) -
Citation académique
Criminal Procedure Code (Thailand), s. 231. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-231/ (accessed 1 septembre 2026). -
Citation thaïlandaise
ป.วิ.อ. มาตรา 231 -
Lien permanent
https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-231/ -
Intégrer sur votre site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-231/"><p>When a party or any person is required to give testimony or to produce any of the following evidence: (1) a document or statement that is still an official secret; (2) a confidential document or statement obtained or known in the course of his profession…</p><footer>Criminal Procedure Code, s. 231 (Thailand): <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-231/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.