The Administrative Court of Thailand

The History of the Administrative Court

Previous Next

    The origin of the Administrative Court actually dates back to the year 1874. At that time, H.M. King Rama V (King Chulalongkorn) established the Council of State based on the European model. The Council of State performed two major roles: 1) to advise the king on the matters concerning State administration; and 2) to advise the king on matters relating to the drafting of legislation and consideration of petitions submitted by the people for redress of grievances. The Council of State was also empowered to consider matters involving disputes between State entities and private citizens. It can be said that the establishment of the Council of State is regarded as the foundation of today’s Administrative Court. However, due to a political power crisis at that time, the Council of State was dissolved after it had been established for only nine months.

    The Council of State was later revived by the Khana Ratsadon (People’s Party) after the system of national administration was radically changed in 1932. Dr. Pridi Banomyong, the leader of the civilian faction in Khana Ratsadon, implemented the idea on forming an organization having competence to adjudicate administrative disputes similar to the “French Council of State” (Conseil d’Etat) and similar organizations in other European countries with civil law systems such as Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxemburg, Italy, and Greece. By virtue of the Council of State Act, B.E. 2476 (1933), the Council of State was officially founded. Its responsibilities at that time as follows:

        - Draft laws or regulations as directed by the House of Representatives or Council of Ministers;

        - Provide legal advice to government bodies; and

        - Try and adjudicate administrative cases prescribed by law to be within the competence of the Council of State. 

    Despite the Council of State Act, B.E. 2476 (1933), there still remained major obstacles in administrative case adjudication such as a lack of legal provisions defining “administrative case”, a suitable administrative case adjudication framework, and a lack of legal provisions clarifying the competence of the Council of State in detail. Later, the Petition Act, B.E. 2492 (1949) was enacted by the government at that time, and by virtue of this Act, the “Petition Council” was established as a separate body authorized to try and adjudicate administrative cases. Nevertheless, the execution of decisions did not depend on the Petition Council, but on the Prime Minister. After being informed of the decisions by the Petition Council, the Prime Minister could issue a directive or not, depending on his discretion. The issue of the Petition Council’s independence together with case procedural issues gave rise to the idea of establishing a truly independent organization which was competent to exercise judicial power in adjudicating administrative cases. 

    This idea, to formally establish an “Administrative Court”, rose to prominence after the Popular Uprising of 14 October 1973. The Constitution, B.E. 2517 (1974) – which was the fruit of the uprising – stipulated the establishment of the Administrative Court as an organization responsible for reviewing the State’s exercise of power and ensuring the protection of individual rights and liberties. However, the formal establishment of the Administrative Court was suspended again due to the uprising of 6 October 1976 and later political events (e.g. coups d'état and changes of government) throughout the time.

    The long wait was over when the Constitution, B.E. 2540 (1997) recognized the establishment of the Administrative Court as an organization separate from the Court of Justice, and the Act on Establishment of the Administrative Court and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542 (1999) came into force. The Administrative Court was officially inaugurated on 9 March 2001. Since its formal inauguration, the Administrative Court of Thailand has served as a mechanism for protecting the rights of the people when they are aggrieved by the actions of administrative agencies. The Administrative Court has always strived to find a balance between the rights and liberties of the people and the work of the State for public benefit. It has also contributed to establishing good practices among administrative agencies and State officials in the country.