Guidelines on State Litigation and Administrative and Constitutional Court Proceedings
On 21 April 2026, the Thai Cabinet approved consolidated guidelines governing litigation involving state agencies, encompassing procedures applicable to proceedings before the Administrative Courts and the Constitutional Court, as proposed by the Secretariat of the Cabinet (SOC).
This Cabinet Resolution repeals and supersedes all prior Cabinet resolutions issued between 2018 and 2022, thereby establishing a single, unified legal framework for state litigation. The reform is designed to enhance clarity, procedural consistency, operational efficiency, and legal certainty — particularly in administrative and constitutional proceedings involving executive authorities.
1. Guidelines Governing Litigation by State Agencies
These guidelines apply broadly to all government entities, including central government agencies, regional and local administrative authorities, state enterprises, public organizations, and other state bodies.
Criminal Proceedings
- Where a criminal offence is committed against a state agency, it is required to file a complaint with the competent inquiry official.
- Where a state agency is named as a defendant in criminal proceedings, representation and conduct of the case shall be undertaken by the public prosecutor.
- State agencies are prohibited from initiating criminal proceedings through privately retained legal counsel, except in circumstances where the public prosecutor declines to act or is otherwise unable to undertake representation.
Disputes Between State Agencies
- State agencies shall exercise due diligence to ensure that disputes and claims are managed in a timely manner and do not become statute-barred.
- Where a limitation period is approaching expiry and the agency is unable to promptly refer the matter to the Office of the Attorney General due to budgetary constraints, the relevant government agency shall arrange for an acknowledgment of debt to preserve the right on the claim and prevent loss.
Time-Barred Claims
- The Cabinet has expressly directed that state agencies must not initiate or pursue claims that are already statute-barred.
- The pursuit of time-barred claims constitutes an improper use of public funds and resources, and risks undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.
- State agencies must not seek to exploit procedural advantages, or take advantage of any lack of legal knowledge on the part of private parties, with respect to claims for which the limitation period has already expired.
2. Proceedings Before the Administrative Courts
The resolution revises the procedures applicable to administrative proceedings in which the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers, or Ministers attached to the Prime Minister’s Office are parties to the litigation. The key features are as follows:
- Where a dispute arises from a Cabinet’s Resolution and no specific agency bears direct responsibility for the matter, the Secretariat of the Cabinet (SOC) or the Office of the Permanent Secretary to the Prime Minister’s Office (OPM), as applicable, shall serve as the coordinating authority.
- Public prosecutors are vested with full power of attorney to represent the Cabinet and holders of political office before all levels of the Administrative Courts.
- Such authority extends to the negotiation of settlements, withdrawal of claims or defenses, waiver of rights, and the filing of appeals, thereby ensuring centralized case management and consistency in litigation strategy.
3. Proceedings Before the Constitutional Court
The resolution provides significant clarification of the procedures applicable to proceedings before the Constitutional Court — an area previously governed by fragmented and dispersed rules.
Cases Involving the Executive
In cases where the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers, or Ministers attached to the Prime Minister’s Office are named as respondents:
- The Secretariat of the Cabinet (SOC) or the Office of the Permanent Secretary to the Prime Minister’s Office (OPM), as applicable, shall act as the principal coordinating authority.
- Public prosecutors are authorized to conduct the defense on behalf of such parties, including the preparation and filing of pleadings, motions, and objections.
- These measures are intended to ensure consistency, procedural uniformity, and the professional management of constitutional litigation involving executive authorities.
Constitutional Review of Legislation
The resolution retains and consolidates existing procedures governing the constitutional review of legislation, including:
- Bills and organic laws approved by Parliament; and
- Existing laws or draft legislation alleged to be inconsistent with, or contrary to, the Constitution.
In such cases:
- The Secretariat of the Cabinet (SOC) shall coordinate the collection of opinions from all relevant government agencies and the Council of State.
- A single, unified position on behalf of the Government shall be prepared and submitted to the Constitutional Court.
- All decisions of the Constitutional Court must be reported to the Cabinet for formal acknowledgment and further consideration, as appropriate.
Key Takeaways
The new guidelines reflect three principal policy directions:
1. Centralization and Consistency in State Litigation
The resolution establishes a unified framework for litigation involving state agencies, ensuring consistency in legal strategy and greater certainty in the management of state disputes.
2. Strengthening the Role of Public Prosecutors
Public prosecutors are reaffirmed as the State’s principal legal representatives in criminal, administrative, and constitutional proceedings, with broad authority to conduct and manage litigation on behalf of the State.
3. Enhancing Readiness for Administrative and Constitutional Litigation
The resolution strengthens coordination in cases involving executive authorities by designating the Secretariat of the Cabinet (SOC) and the Office of the Permanent Secretary to the Prime Minister’s Office (OPM) as the principal coordinating agencies.
Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.
Other Articles
- Employment: Supreme Court Judgment No. 9052/2559 Reinforces Protections for Older Workers in Thailand’s Private Sector
- Ride Sharing: Guidelines for Platforms and Drivers Under New Strict Regulations
- Asia IP – Lesson from Taylor Swift
- Digital Advertising: Enhanced Regulations on False and Misleading Advertisements
- Asia IP – Cartoons and characters on merchandise: All about character licensing and IP protection
- Thailand Tightens Trade and Transshipment Regulations Amid Global Pressure