Section 113 — Insurrection against the State
English translation
Whoever uses force or threatens to use force in order to: (1) overthrow or change the Constitution; (2) overthrow the legislative power, the executive power or the judicial power of the Constitution, or render such power incapable of being exercised; or (3) separate the Kingdom or seize the governing power in any part of the Kingdom, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 113 is the core insurrection (กบฏ) offence and opens the title on offences against the internal security of the Kingdom. Its elements are the use or threat of force (กำลังประทุษร้าย) combined with one of three specified aims: overthrowing or changing the Constitution, overthrowing or paralysing one of the three branches of state power, or separating or seizing control of part of the Kingdom. The penalty, death or imprisonment for life, is among the most severe in the Code. Related conduct is dealt with in the adjacent sections: Section 114 punishes preparatory acts such as gathering forces or arms for insurrection, while Section 116 covers seditious incitement that stops short of the force required here.
Why this matters in practice
This is an offence directed against the State itself, which the courts have treated as making the State the sole injured party: a private individual, even a member of parliament, generally has no standing to prosecute, and enforcement lies with the public prosecutor. The penalty exposure is death or life imprisonment, and preparatory acts can be charged separately under Section 114. Whether alleged conduct meets the threshold of using or threatening force for one of the three prohibited aims, as opposed to mere political expression under Section 116, is often the decisive question.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2857/2530 (1987)
Offences against the internal security of the Kingdom under Sections 113, 114 and 116 are offences directly against the State, so only the State is the injured party and a private person, even a member of parliament, has no power to prosecute.
The public prosecutor charged the defendants under Sections 113, 114 and 116. The court held that these offences against the internal security of the Kingdom are committed directly against the State, so the State alone is the injured party with power to prosecute. Even though the complainant was a member of parliament, he was not an injured person under the Criminal Procedure Code and had no standing to bring the case.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1688/2561 (2018)
Where a body that seized power exercised de facto executive and legislative authority over the machinery of state, the interim constitution it enacted has the status of law.
Fifteen plaintiffs sought to prosecute five defendants under Sections 113 and 114, and the lower courts dismissed the case. On the plaintiffs' further appeal, the court reasoned that the body which seized power had de facto executive and legislative authority controlling the mechanisms and agencies of state, so the interim constitution it enacted had the status of law.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
What is the offence of insurrection under Section 113?
It is using or threatening force to overthrow or change the Constitution, to overthrow or paralyse state power, or to separate or seize part of the Kingdom, punishable by death or life imprisonment.
Can a private person prosecute an insurrection case?
The courts have held that offences against the internal security of the State injure the State alone, so a private individual generally lacks standing and prosecution rests with the public prosecutor.