"Time is My Only Stake": The Appeal Court’s Verdict and the Deep Scars of Atiruj and Article 112

Time is the only thing I have left to fight this law. This imprisonment is like me choosing to pay with a year and a half of my life to send a message to society: Does a person shouting or expressing an opinion about the monarchy in Thailand really have to trade their freedom for this long?”

These were the words of Atiruj, a 29-year-old programmer facing a major life trial following his prosecution under Section 112 (Lèse-Majesté) and charges of resisting or obstructing an official. The case stems from an incident on October 15, 2022, at the Queen Sirikit National Convention Center. While heading home from a national book fair, he encountered a group of officers questioning people regarding a royal motorcade. When he declined to participate and tried to cross the street to the subway, he was surrounded and blocked by the officers.

Driven by frustration from past news of the Nong Bua Lamphu massacre—where grieving families were reportedly mobilized for official ceremonies—and the personal impact of traffic closures for royal motorcades, Atiruj made a split-second decision. As the crowd chanted “Long Live the King,” he shouted back: “Wherever you go, it’s a burden.” It was the beginning of a legal case that would change his life forever.

Despite being restrained and taken to a private room within the convention center—and facing additional charges for allegedly assaulting an official (though he sustained injuries from an officer’s knee pinning him to the ground)—Atiruj remained steadfast. He fought the case on appeal based on the principle that defamation laws should be a matter between direct parties, rather than allowing anyone to file a complaint on behalf of the palace. For Atiruj, this is a structural flaw, transforming the law into a political tool rather than the protective measure it claims to be.

Update: Court of Appeal Verdict (March 16, 2026)

On March 16, 2026, at 1:00 PM, the Bangkok South Criminal Court read the Appeal Court’s verdict. The court upheld the lower court’s ruling, sentencing Atiruj to a total of 1 year and 8 months in prison without parole.

Regarding the charge of resisting an official, the court ruled that although the officers were in plainclothes, they were wearing identification badges. The court stated that since Atiruj holds a bachelor’s degree, he "should have known right from wrong" and recognized the individuals as officers. Regarding Article 112, the court found that shouting such a message as the royal car passed was an act contrary to the sentiments of the Thai people, leading to hatred, loss of faith, and social division. The court dismissed the hardships faced by his family as "personal reasons" that did not warrant a suspended sentence.

For the past three to four years, Atiruj’s life has been effectively frozen. Although still working as a programmer, the criminal case forced him to cancel plans for further study abroad and halted his career advancement. Previously, he had expressed a resolve to accept the prison sentence as a symbolic tool to communicate how much of an obstacle this law is to freedom. His calm preparation for prison reflected the determination of a new generation willing to trade personal liberty to rattle the nation's traditional beliefs—even as he now proceeds with a bail application pending a Supreme Court petition.

Atiruj’s hope in the Thai justice system continues to dwindle, especially as politics shifts toward a more conservative stance. Yet, he refuses to give up on long-term change. He still dreams of a day when Thailand has true free speech, where structural criticism is not a crime, and where the Bureau of the Royal Household acts as a direct party in disputes rather than allowing third parties to use the law as a weapon of destruction.

Before his sentencing, Atiruj urged society to watch the fate of the 44 former Move Forward Party MPs who signed a petition to amend Article 112. To him, their case is proof that this is not a normal law; it is a fundamental problem eating away at the foundations of Thai democracy. Above all, this situation underscores the position of the current government—dominated by figures like Anutin Charnvirakul—who have shown no intention of touching or reforming this archaic law. Ignoring the plight of citizens like Atiruj not only upholds an authoritarian structure but ensures that social conflict in Thailand will continue without an exit.