Section 164 — Officer disclosing official secrets
English translation
Whoever, being an official who knows or may know a secret of the government, by any means wrongful to their duty causes another person to learn that secret, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years, or a fine not exceeding one hundred 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 164 protects official secrets against leaks by the very officers entrusted with them. Its elements are: (1) the actor is an official; (2) who knows or may know a secret of the government; and (3) by any means wrongful to their duty causes another to learn that secret. The wrongdoing lies in the unauthorised disclosure; a disclosure that is authorised by law or by an officer with power to declassify the information is not caught. Because the same act often also amounts to dishonest or wrongful performance of duty, prosecutors regularly pair it with Section 157, and where a single act offends both, the court sentences under the heavier provision. What counts as a protected "secret" is informed by the regulations and law on official information secrecy.
Why this matters in practice
Maximum exposure is five years, and as a public-office offence it is not compoundable with a private complainant. The central battleground is whether the information was genuinely a protected secret and whether the disclosure was authorised: the Supreme Court has recognised that the head of a State agency may hold power to order the disclosure of classified information under the official secrecy regulations, which can negate the wrongful-disclosure element. Charges often accompany Section 157 and sometimes defamation counts under Section 328 where the leak also injures reputation. Officials handling classified files, and anyone accused of leaking, should take legal advice on whether an authorisation or declassification defence is available.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 19969/2556 (2013)
The head of a State agency who has responsibility for the general administration of a unit is an agency head with power to order the disclosure of classified information under the official secrecy regulations, issued under the Official Information Act; a disclosure made within that authority is not a wrongful disclosure.
In this state-audit dispute, the Court recognised that the head of the agency, being responsible for its general administration, had authority under the official secrecy regulations to order disclosure of classified information. That authority is relevant to whether an alleged disclosure was wrongful for the purposes of Section 164.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3194/2536 (1993)
Persons appointed to an examination committee are officials, and their official duty runs from the time they learn of the appointment until the examination is complete, not only during the interview stage; a non-committee teacher who assists them is liable as a supporter.
Examination committee members were found to be officials whose duty spanned the entire appointment, and they were convicted under Sections 157 and 164 for conduct relating to the examination, a protected official matter. Teachers who were not committee members but assisted them were liable as supporters. The case shows Section 164 applied to the leaking or mishandling of confidential examination material.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Is every disclosure of official information an offence under Section 164?
No. The disclosure must be a government secret and made by wrongful means outside the officer's authority. A disclosure authorised by law or by an officer with power to declassify is not an offence.
What is the penalty under Section 164?
Imprisonment not exceeding five years, or a fine not exceeding 100,000 baht, or both. It is frequently charged together with Section 157.