Section 136 — Insulting an official
English translation
Whoever insults an official in the exercise of his duty, or by reason of the exercise of his duty, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding one year, or a fine not exceeding twenty thousand baht, or both.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 136 opens the Title on Offences against Officials. Its elements are an act of insult (ดูหมิ่น) directed at a person who is an official, connected to the official's duty either because the insult occurs during the exercise of that duty or is provoked by it. Unlike defamation under Sections 326 and 328, this offence protects the dignity of public office and does not require communication to a third party or an assertion of fact; a contemptuous utterance is enough. It is frequently charged together with criminal defamation where the same words also harm reputation, and courts have found the good-faith and fair-comment defences in Section 329 unavailable where the accused could instead have used lawful process to challenge the official.
Why this matters in practice
Insulting a police officer or other official, whether face to face or in a social media post, carries up to one year in prison, and Facebook posts calling out an officer on duty have been convicted under this section. Because the protected interest is the office, not a private reputation, it is not compoundable in the way ordinary defamation between private parties can be settled, and the State drives the prosecution. Two practical points recur: the target must genuinely be an official acting in or by reason of duty, and the belief that the official acted unlawfully is not a defence, since the proper route is a legal challenge, not abuse. For how criminal insult and defamation interact, see defamation laws in Thailand.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2565/2565 (2022)
A disparaging post on a public social media page about an official while performing duty, calling the officer names, constitutes insulting an official under Section 136.
The defendant posted on Facebook that the co-plaintiff was covering his face like a robber, referring to the officer while on duty. The court held this was disparaging language against an official performing his duty, an offence under Section 136, and imposed two months' imprisonment and a 10,000 baht fine with the prison term suspended.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1608/2564 (2021)
Words implying that a police officer was abusing his authority dishonestly are not merely impolite but amount to disparaging an official performing duty, an offence under Section 136.
The court considered words that would be understood as accusing a police officer of dishonestly abusing his authority. It held that such language was not merely impolite or improper but was disparagement of an official acting in the course of duty, constituting an offence under Section 136.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 321/2568 (2025)
Where a person believes an official acted unlawfully, the lawful course is to use the justice process; the good-faith and self-interest defences in Section 329(1)(3) do not excuse insulting or defaming the official.
The defendant was prosecuted under Sections 136, 326 and 328. The court held that if the defendant thought the co-plaintiff's conduct was unlawful he could have used the justice process, so his conduct did not fall within the exemptions in Section 329(1)(3) and he remained liable.
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 penalty for insulting an official under Section 136?
Imprisonment not exceeding one year, or a fine not exceeding 20,000 baht, or both.
Can a Facebook post insult an official under Section 136?
Yes. The Supreme Court has held that a Facebook post disparaging an officer performing duty can constitute insulting an official under Section 136.
Is believing the official acted wrongly a defence?
No. If you think an official acted unlawfully, the proper course is to use legal process; the good-faith defence in Section 329 has been held unavailable in such cases.