The Election Commission of Thailand (ECT) has sued several citizens for sedition and membership of an unlawful secret society after they attempted to decode the QR codes printed on the ballot papers to demonstrate a lack of transparency in the 2026 general election.

Kanchit Charoen-in, ECT Deputy Secretary-General, revealed that the ECT decided to pursue legal proceedings against members of the general public. The lawsuit stems from an incident on 22 February when a re-run election was held in Constituency 15 in Bangkok’s Khan Na Yao District, according to several Thai news outlets.

Citizens gathered at a polling station to observe vote-counting to ensure electoral transparency. They allegedly took photos of marked ballot papers and zoomed in to display the controversial QR codes attached to the ballot papers. They also attempted to decode the barcodes in question to demonstrate that the elections lacked transparency.

The ECT later revealed six people were involved, including former ECT commissioner Somchai Srisutthiyakorn, People’s Party spokesperson Parit Wacharasindh and photographer Songpon Ruengsamut from media outlet Spacebar.

According to the ECT, the accused face five charges under three different laws: the 2017 Organic Act on the Election Commission, the Criminal Code, and the Computer Crimes Act.

The ECT charges the accused with obstructing officials in the performance of their duties under Section 66 of the Organic Act,, importing false information into a computer system, and sedition, membership of a secret society aimed at committing illegal activities and tampering with confidential information under the Criminal Code.

Kanchit stated that the attempt to decode the QR codes — to prove that the QR codes could be used to trace how individuals cast their votes and undermine trust in the ECT — went beyond what was permitted by the law.

Kanchit asserted that the ECT procedures have already been transparent and reliable. 

It is believed that the case is not an ordinary legal proceeding, but rather a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), particularly with regard to the charges against the photojournalist who was merely performing his professional duty.

Notably, the general public has yet to be provided with legal grounds for the ECT’s charges against the six accused, raising further questions, given that the charges were severe and carried high penalties.

Significantly, no legal provision prohibits taking photos of marked ballots during vote counting. The law merely states that an individual is not allowed to take photos of their own marked ballot papers and disclose them to others. Taking photos during vote counting has in fact been a common practice in Thai elections.

The sedition charge appears to be based on the attempt to expose concerns regarding the QR codes rather than merely taking photos, which could undermine public trust in the ECT.

Among all the charges, sedition and membership of a secret society carry the most severe penalty, with a maximum sentence of seven years. To sustain the second charge, it must be proved that the accused were ‘members’ of a permanent group formed with the intent to commit unlawful acts.

Charges of sedition and membership of a secret society have historically been used against political dissidents and criminal groups considered threats to national security.

The ECT later argued that the claim that the ECT pursue any legal proceedings against citizens, as reported in the news, was untrue, asserting that taking photos during vote counting is permitted. But those who are accused appeared to operate as an organised network. They used their social media platforms to talk and discuss the controversial QR code, which the ECT believed they intended to incite disorder.

As a result, the accused were not considered ordinary citizens.

Thailand’s 2026 general elections have faced multiple concerns over electoral transparency, and the ECT itself has faced a legitimacy crisis over its competence after several abnormalities were flagged, including a high number of discrepancies between the numbers of ballot papers for constituency MPs and party list MPs.

Another serious concern was the discovery of unique barcodes and QR codes on ballot papers, potentially revealing how each voter cast their votes; this could lead to voiding the elections. The concern prompted heated debate and multiple legal challenges against the ECT.

Members of the general public have attempted to prove that ballot papers were traceable by decoding sample papers, and it was reportedly found that individual voters could be identified.