The Right of Persons with Disabilities for being A Judges

Authors

  • Nuwat Tatu Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Taksin University
  • Thitipawn Boromthongchum Independent Scholar. Office of The President, Songkhla Rajabhat University
  • Siwarut Laikram Lecturer, School of Law, Walailuk University

Keywords:

Persons with Disabilities, Unfair Discrimination, Work as Judges

Abstract

This academic article aims to examine the opportunities available to persons with disabilities in accessing their fundamental right to employment, with a particular focus on entering the civil service in the position of judge. The primary emphasis is placed on analyzing the eligibility criteria of applicants under Section 26 (11) of the Act on Judicial Service Regulations B.E. 2543. This article seeks to assess whether such legal provisions are consistent with the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2560, as well as with relevant international human rights laws to which Thailand is a party. A comparative analysis is also conducted against relevant legal theories and frameworks both within Thailand and internationally, with the overarching aim of developing Thai law to ensure equal access to fundamental rights for persons with disabilities.

The findings reveal that, in Thailand, persons with disabilities have previously applied to sit for the competitive examination to serve as assistant judges on multiple occasions. However, they were consistently denied the opportunity to take the examination on the grounds of lacking the required physical qualifications as prescribed by the aforementioned Act. This practice has persisted despite Thailand's ratification of relevant international human rights instruments and the existence of rulings by the Constitutional Court on this matter.

The author recommends that the eligibility criteria under the said Act should be amended. In particular, the disqualification of candidates based solely on physical conditions should be prohibited. Instead, such assessment must take into account the availability and appropriateness of reasonable accommodations. This amendment would bring the law in line with Thailand’s international human rights obligations and ensure compliance with the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2560 (2017).

References

Bunjert singkanati. (2005). The Constitutional Court's Decisions and the Administrative Court's Judgments: Regarding the Right to Apply for an Examination. Retrieved December 25, 2024. From http://public-law.net/publaw/view.aspx?id=813.

Constitutional Court Ruling No. 15/2555 (2012). (2012, October 18). Royal Thai Government Gazette. No. 129. p. 94.

Dewsbury, G., Clarke, K., Randall, D., Rouncefield, M., & Sommerville, I. (2004). The anti-social model of disability. Disability & Society, 19(2), 145–158.

Grerkgiat TipChai, Treenate Sarapong, Ganganya Jaigarnwongsakul, Wasin Suwanrut & Kittisak Nuchaikaew. (2023). Some considerations regarding civil servants' freedom to engage in occupation outside of working hours. Journal of Local Administration and Innovation, 7(3), 273-292.

Nuwat Tatu (2019). Legal problems on access to copyright works for persons who are blind and visually impaired. Thesis Master of Business Law. Thammasat University.

Pakorn Singsuriya & Wipada Angsumalin (2010). Dualism in Medical and Social Model of Disability. Journal of Ratchasuda College for Research and Development of Persons with Disabilities, 3(1-2), 27-45.

Pfieffer D. (2001). The conceptualization of disability. Research in social science and disability, 2(1), 29-52.

Pornpech Chonlasaktrakul & Nutdanai Supattrakul. (2019). The appropriat eness of applying the entry position system to the judges of justice in The United States of America in Thailand. Academ-hv8bfic Journal Phranakhon Rajabhat University, 10(2), 334-344.

Sarawoot Intapanom (2016). Barriers on the rights to equal employment opportunity with persons with disabilities in Thailand. Journal of Social Development and Management Strategy, 18, 89-106.

Torpong Kittiyanupong (2019). Theory of fundamental rights (2nd ed.). Bangkok: Winyuchon Press.

The Times. (2008). Sir John Wall: First blind High Court judge of modern times. Retrieved April 22, 2025, From https://www.thetimes.com /uk/law/article/sir-john-wall-first-blind-high-court-judge-of-modern-times-njmkhwg6l8n?region=global

Matichon Online. (2024). Human rights lawyers association claims that the judicial commission has violated the law against discrimination against persons with disabilities in the judge examination. Retrieved December 25, 2024, From https://www.matichon.co.th/local/news_4832999

Office of The Judiciary. (2024). The office of the judiciary clarifies the qualifications for the judge selection examination under the judicial officers Act B.E. 2543, Section 26(11). Retrieved December 25, 2024, From https://iprd.coj.go.th/th/content/page/index/id/450505

Downloads

Published

2025-06-27

How to Cite

Tatu, Nuwat, บรมทองชุ่ม ฐิติพร, and Siwarut Laikram. “The Right of Persons with Disabilities for being A Judges”. Law and Local Society Journal 9, no. 1 (June 27, 2025): 167–192. accessed March 8, 2026. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/llsj/article/view/278563.

Issue

Section

Academic Article