Section 136: Insulting an official

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.