Past year 'good for charter court transparency'

“This year has been satisfactory because cases involving constitutional disputes show a greater understanding of the rule of law,” Chaowana said.
The nine judges have, throughout the year, stepped up their efforts to engage the public by explaining how and why they formed their decisions in order to dispel doubts on judicial impartiality, he said.
Key decisions included three cases with a direct bearing on human rights and liberties.
In the first case, the high court ruled that provisions under the direct marketing law were unconstitutional. The legislation in question was repealed because its provisions had presumed guilt involving company executives linked to rogue trading.
This violated Article 39 of the Constitution enshrining the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
In the second case, the high court found a provision of the judiciary employment procedures to be discriminatory against people with disabilities.
The third case saw a change in the income tax code in order to repeal unfair tax liabilities on married women.
One of the highlights of this year’s verdict was a ruling on the constitutionality of the lese majeste clause under Article 112 of the Criminal Code. The high court opined that the clause was designed to protect the head of state, which did not contradict freedom of expression.
In another case, the high court ruled to sanction the government’s executive power to incur and manage public debt in connection with post-flooding reconstruction and the Financial Institutions Development Fund.
In regard to charter change, the high court ruled that public advocates could directly petition for a judicial review of any suspected attempt to derail democratic rule with the King as head of state.
It also opined that the ongoing legislative push to rewrite the charter via the formation of the Constitution Drafting Assembly could not be construed as an attempted overthrow of the democratic system. In its latest decision, a case on the government-to-government rice sale was dismissed because the petition was speculative in nature, lacking specifics on which to frame a judicial opinion on the deal under dispute.
Of the 12 backlog cases, most were related to political issues. Only a few were about legality, such as qualifications to hold office.