Freedom Under the Shadow of Law: The Lèse-Majesté Charges Against Thammasat Students

At 10:00 AM on January 21, 2026, four Thammasat University students—identified as "Friend," "Maimok," "Pukpik" (pseudonym), and an anonymous peer—accompanied by their lawyers, reported to Khlong Luang Police Station to acknowledge charges under Article 112 (Lèse-Majesté) and the Computer Crimes Act. The case stems from a political satire banner activity held at the Rangsit campus in late 2025. The atmosphere at the station was highly secured, with several officers monitoring the entrance as the students arrived with their families to assert their innocence and their right to political expression.

The basis for these charges, according to investigators, involves photographs from the "Thammasat University Independent Political Satire Group" Facebook page showing banners discussing freedom and the monarchy hung at five locations across the campus. Authorities alleged that the timing of this activity coincided with the royal funeral procession of Queen Sirikit the Queen Mother. Consequently, the messages were interpreted as intentional insults and defamation aimed at gaining social media traction, which the police claimed violated public order and tarnished the institution's honour.

During the investigation, five officers informed the students of their rights and conducted interrogations under strict video and audio recording. All four students denied all charges and scheduled a formal written defence for February 15, 2026. Following the session, the police released them without detention, with a follow-up appointment set for February 20. Notably, activist "Sainam" was present as an observer and engaged in a discussion with officers regarding the station's barricades—fences that were reportedly installed as a direct result of his previous protests there.

Maimok, a 21-year-old third-year student from the Faculty of Sociology and Anthropology, expressed that the prosecution was fundamentally unfair. He argued that a university should be the safest space for political expression and suspected a "hidden agenda" behind using this law to silence protests against university policies. He also urged the public to recognise the importance of the upcoming constitutional referendum (the 3rd ballot) to resolve the nation's legal crisis. Data from Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reveals that at least 289 individuals have been prosecuted under Article 112 over the past five years.

In cases involving "cloth banners," the primary legal defence focuses on proving "intent." Defence teams typically argue that the messages are critiques of the institution or social structures rather than specific acts of defamation or malice toward the four individuals protected by the law. They also emphasise "academic freedom" and good-faith expression under the constitution. However, a major hurdle remains the Thai judiciary's "broad interpretation" of Article 112, which often extends the definition of "insult" to cover almost any institutional critique, leaving very little room for legal manoeuvring.

Policy Recommendations from 112WATCH

To address the systemic weaponisation of the law, 112WATCH recommends the following reforms (previously reiterated):

1. Sentencing Reform: Reduce the maximum penalty to 3 years and abolish the mandatory minimum sentence to align with international proportionality standards.
2. Restrict Complainant Authority: Limit the right to file complaints solely to the Bureau of the Royal Household to prevent political factions from using the law as a weapon.
3. Guarantee Bail Rights: End the systematic denial of pre-trial detention and strictly adhere to the "Presumption of Innocence."
4. Legal Reclassification: Move Article 112 out of the "National Security" chapter of the Criminal Code to prevent extreme legal interpretations.

Special thanks to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) for the information.