Section 116 — Sedition and incitement of unrest
English translation
Whoever makes anything appear to the public by words, writings or any other means which is not an act within the purpose of the Constitution and is not for the expression of an honest opinion or criticism, in order to: (1) bring about a change in the laws of the country or the Government by the use of force or violence; (2) raise unrest and disaffection among the people to a degree likely to cause disturbance in the Kingdom; or (3) cause the people to transgress the laws of the country, shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding seven years.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 116, the sedition offence, is another provision in the title on offences against the internal security of the Kingdom. Its structure is important: the offence applies only where the appeal to the public is not within the purpose of the Constitution and is not an honest expression of opinion or criticism, and is made with one of three specified aims, namely forcing a change of law or government by force, raising unrest likely to cause disturbance, or inciting the people to break the law. The built-in exception for honest opinion or criticism within constitutional purposes is what separates lawful political expression from the offence. It sits between the force-based insurrection offence in Section 113 and ordinary public-order offences, and is frequently charged with the Computer Crime Act when the communication is online.
Why this matters in practice
The maximum penalty is seven years, and where the communication is online a parallel charge under the Computer Crime Act often follows. The strongest line of defence is usually the statutory carve-out: conduct that is an honest expression of opinion or criticism within the purposes of the Constitution is not an offence, so the dividing line between protected political speech and sedition is central. As an offence against the State, only the State is treated as the injured party, so it is prosecuted by the public prosecutor rather than by a private complainant.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2857/2530 (1987)
Sedition under Section 116, together with the insurrection offences in Sections 113 and 114, is an offence 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 as offences against the internal security of the Kingdom. The court held that these are offences committed directly against the State, so the State alone is the injured party with power to prosecute. A member of parliament acting as complainant was not an injured person under the Criminal Procedure Code and had no standing to bring the case.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Does Section 116 criminalise ordinary criticism of the government?
No. The section expressly excludes honest expression of opinion or criticism within the purposes of the Constitution; it applies only to appeals made with one of the three prohibited aims, such as forcing change by violence or inciting people to break the law.
What is the penalty under Section 116?
The offence carries imprisonment not exceeding seven years, and an online communication may attract an additional charge under the Computer Crime Act.