Supreme Court Upholds Prison Sentences for "Pai" and "Kru Yai" in Section 112 Case, Clarifying Protection Covers All Kings of the Chakri Dynasty

October 1, 2026 — According to a report by Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) published on September 30, the Phu Khieo Provincial Court scheduled the reading of the Supreme Court's verdict on September 30 in a Section 112 case against Jatupat "Pai" Boonpattararaksa and Attapol "Kru Yai" Buapat. The case stems from speeches on monarchy reform delivered during a rally in front of Phu Khieo School and Phu Khieo Police Station in Chaiyaphum Province on February 1, 2021. The reading had been postponed twice from its original dates (September 23 and 29) due to flooding that disrupted the prison's computer systems.

In the Supreme Court appeal, Jatupat argued that Section 112 must be strictly interpreted to cover only the reigning monarch and that his speech referenced the "institution" as a whole rather than an individual. Attapol argued that the term "King" refers to an official title—similar to a village headman—and that his phrase "if not the King's, then whose is it?" referred to Siam Cement Group (SCG), while requesting a suspended sentence. However, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Region 3 Court of Appeal, sentencing Jatupat to 2 years and 12 months in prison and Attapol to 2 years, bringing an end to the legal proceedings ongoing since 2021.

At Courtroom 5, defense attorneys and Jatupat's family gathered to hear the verdict, while Jatupat and Attapol attended via video conference from the Bangkok Remand Prison. The presiding judge of the Phu Khieo Provincial Court unsealed and read a summary of the ruling:

Regarding whether both defendants violated Section 112, the Supreme Court ruled that although Section 112 does not explicitly mention the term "monarchy as an institution," the legal protection extends to both the reigning monarch and all past monarchs of the Chakri Dynasty. This stems from its historical significance, cultural ties, and an unbroken lineage in legal structure. The respect citizens hold for the institution today is partly reflected in the royal duties carried out by past monarchs across all eras.

The court determined that Jatupat's statements implied that past monarchs and the current King failed to abide by the Ten Virtues of a King (Dasavidha-rajadhamma), violating the constitutional guarantee that the King holds a revered position that shall not be violated, thereby defaming and inciting hatred against the King.

Addressing the claim that Section 112 applies exclusively to the ruling monarch, the court held that the institution and the person of the King are inextricably linked and tied to national security; thus, Jatupat's words pertained to all kings.

Regarding Attapol's statements, the court found they led listeners to understand that the King ordered mountain blasting for the benefit of a cement factory in Saraburi, which did not constitute fair criticism of the government as claimed.

On the defense comparing the royal status to civil servants or village headmen to argue it refers to a office rather than a person, the Supreme Court held that the positions are incomparable in every aspect:

• Origins: Royal succession follows bloodlines within the Chakri Dynasty pursuant to the Constitution and the Palace Law on Succession B.E. 2467 (1924), whereas civil servants enter through examinations or appointments and village headmen through elections.
• Powers: The King stands above politics and exercises sovereign power through Parliament, the Cabinet, and the Courts, whereas civil servants and headmen exercise administrative powers bound strictly by specific statutory provisions.
• Tenure: The King reigns for life, whereas civil servants and headmen serve terms defined by law and are subject to removal.
• Liability: The King is immune from civil or criminal prosecution, with political accountability resting with the government, whereas civil servants and headmen face disciplinary, civil, and criminal liabilities.

Consequently, the Supreme Court concurred with the Region 3 Court of Appeal that both defendants committed royal defamation, dismissing their appeals.

Regarding Attapol's request for a suspended sentence, the court ruled that the offense was committed in public with the intent to reach a broad audience, demeaning the monarch's honor and misleading the public regarding the King's adherence to royal virtues. Finding no grounds for suspension, the court upheld the sentences: 2 years and 12 months for Jatupat, and 2 years for Attapol.

Other charges against the two—including Section 116 (2) and (3), violations of the Emergency Decree, and unauthorized use of loudspeakers—were finalized previously when the court of first instance dismissed them.

Following the reading, Jatupat's mother, acting as his bail guarantor, consulted the court regarding a motion filed on September 25, 2026, to revoke bail and surrender the defendants due to force majeure caused by flooding. Court officials confirmed after consulting the chief judge that the sentence count would retroactively start from September 25, the date of filing.

Regarding the removal of Electronic Monitoring (EM) anklets, the court explained that flooding around the Criminal Court and the prison on Monday and Tuesday prevented officials from transporting the defendants. The removal will take place once floodwaters recede, in coordination with prison authorities.

The defense requested the court to route updates through Jatupat's mother so the family could coordinate with their Bangkok-based legal team regarding commissary purchases and daily necessities.

During the video conference, Jatupat and Attapol—who have been detained at Bangkok Remand Prison for over a year—inquired about the final execution warrant. The judge noted it would be issued promptly, as the case reached its final judgment on the day the verdict was read.

Toward the end of the session, Jatupat's mother asked about prison conditions amid the Bangkok floods and whether family or lawyers could visit. Jatupat replied that the situation remained unclear, adding that he was mostly eating instant noodles because standard food orders could not be delivered due to flooding.

Jatupat added that he had "come to terms with it" and asked to be notified about any future court transfers. His mother bade farewell, saying, "Stay safe, take care of your body and health, I miss you," to which Jatupat reminded her to be careful of the floods as well.

Today's Supreme Court ruling brings an end to the Section 112 case surrounding the Phu Khieo rally after more than five years of legal battles across three judicial levels, officially rendering both individuals convicted prisoners.

Meanwhile, Jatupat still faces a Section 116 charge stemming from the "#SummonsAnywhereMobAnywhere" rally in Khon Kaen Province. The appeal verdict, originally set for September 29, 2026, was postponed. In that case, the defense has submitted a motion to dismiss under the Act for the Promotion of a Peaceful Society, on which the court has yet to issue an order.