The Plaintiffs were students of public schools aggrieved by the Defendant No. 2’s Regulation, which prescribed some hairstyles and the use of cosmetics as ‘inappropriate for students.’ They filed the case with the Supreme Administrative Court, requesting the revocation of the said rule. The Court held that even though the disputed Regulation was intended to foster good behavior, it did not take any changes in the social context and the development of children’s identities and personalities into consideration. Accordingly, it did not give primary importance to the best interests of the child, and thus contradicted the Child Protection Act, B.E. 2546 (2003). Furthermore, the Defendant No. 2 had issued a ministerial regulation pursuant to the Act, which empowered schools to set out their own rules on students’ behavior, including attire and hairstyles. Therefore, the disputed clause, issued under the Announcement of the Revolutionary Council, could not remain enforceable by virtue of the transitional provision of the said Act and was deemed to be revoked by the Child Protection Act, B.E. 2546 (2003). Ultimately, the aforementioned Regulation constituted an unreasonable restriction of the liberty over a person’s body, which was prohibited by the Constitution, and therefore was unenforceable.
