A 31-year-old man has been sentenced to prison by the Supreme Court for royal defamation over his social media post questioning the death of King Rama VIII. The ruling has stirred outcry among the general public, as many argued that the Court overinterpreted the law and that the decision could harm academic historical studies.

31-year-old Wuthipat (surname withheld) was charged with royal defamation and violation of the Computer Crimes Act over his comment about the death of King Rama VIII in the “Royalist Marketplace” Facebook group, known for its discussions of the monarchy, with about 100,000 group members at the time of the incident.

His comment also allegedly referred to the late King Rama IX, and misled the public about the connection between the late King and the death of King Rama VIII.

This case was filed with the police by Siwaphan Manitkun, who has filed at least nine other royal defamation cases.

According to the royal defamation law or Section 112, whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years.

The Court of First Instance dismissed the royal defamation accusation, despite agreeing that Wuthipat’s comment was an insult, noting that the royal defamation protects the King, Queen, Heir Apparent and the Regent, but does not cover deceased kings.

However, Wuthipat’s comment, which was deleted 10 minutes after posting, constituted uploading false or misleading information into a computer system, causing public anxiety, and convincing people to despise the late King. The Court sentenced him to one year in prison for violation of the Computer Crimes Act. The sentence was later reduced to eight months due to Wuthipat’s cooperation with the inquiry.

The Court allowed bail with 150,000 baht as security. The public prosecutor later appealed the case, arguing that defamation towards deceased kings also affected the reigning King.

Wuthipat argued that the Constitution stipulates that the King serves as the head of state, and that the royal defamation law cannot be interpreted as covering deceased kings who are no longer in that position.

The Appeal Court reversed the initial verdict regarding the royal defamation charge, arguing that the provision does not explicitly limit protection to the reigning King. In addition, the late King Bhumibol was the father of King Vajiralongkorn, and that defamation of the former could also affect the reigning King.

The Appeal Court sentenced Wuthipat to five years in prison, but the term was later reduced to three years and four months due to his cooperation in the inquiry. Wuthipat decided to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

According to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, the Supreme Court ruled to uphold the Appeal Court’s verdict. Wuthipat was sentenced to three years and four months without suspension.

The Supreme Court stated that its interpretation of the royal defamation law was neither beyond the scope nor contrary to the spirit of the law. If the law covers only the reigning King, it would create a legal gap, potentially eroding the public trust and faith in the institution, which is considered a pillar of society, and it would affect national security.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case has stirred outcry among the general public, as many argue that the Court overextended the law’s interpretation, and it could harm studies of the country’s history.