IndiaFocal.

India, in focus.

World

Representative image · Photo: IndiaFocal
Representative image · Photo: IndiaFocal

Thai court clears February election, rejects ballot secrecy challenge

Thailand's Constitutional Court dismissed a petition against February's general election, ruling that coded ballot papers did not violate voter secrecy.

Thailand's Constitutional Court on Monday dismissed a petition challenging the legality of February's general election, holding that the ballot papers used did not breach voter secrecy. The decision removes the immediate prospect of the poll being held again.

About 38 million Thais cast votes in the February 8 election, which was won decisively by Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul's Bhumjaithai Party. The result allowed the party to assemble a coalition commanding more than 290 of the 500 seats in parliament.

The case originated in a petition from the ombudsman, which contended that barcodes and QR codes printed on the ballots could be used to work out which candidate and party an individual voter had backed. The election commission maintained that the codes served security purposes and that identifying a voter would require access to ballot stubs kept in separate storage.

The verdict is likely to be welcomed by Anutin, whose party is seeking to shore up public confidence amid a sluggish economy and allegations of corruption, including claims of involvement in rigging a selection process for the Senate. The party denies the allegations.

The case drew close attention because of the Constitutional Court's central role in two decades of on-and-off political upheaval. Its rulings have dissolved major parties, annulled two general elections and unseated several governments and prime ministers.

In 2006, the same court voided a general election after finding that the layout of polling booths compromised ballot secrecy and that the vote had been called with too little notice. It annulled the 2014 election after anti-government demonstrators blocked polling stations in Bangkok and the south, making it impossible to vote nationwide on a single day. Both decisions came during periods of political unrest that were followed by military coups in the same years.