Of all the legal and constitutional challenges that have emerged in abundance throughout Thailand's political crisis, none is more contentious where human rights are concerned than the case of defiant Chulalongkorn University lecturer Chaiyan Chaiyaporn. On election day the senior academic of the Political Science Faculty, saying his vote could be "abused" if cast, ticked the "no vote" boxes on the constituency MP and party-list MP ballots with a red marker pen he had brought with him and then tore them up in front of an army of reporters. As he did so, his son, a sixth grader, held up a placard quoting Article 65 of the Constitution, which empowers any citizen to peacefully resist any attempt to seek power unconstitutionally.

"Civil disobedience" has been the buzzword of the anti-Thaksin campaign. There were calls for the public to boycott the April 2 snap election, or to stop paying taxes, or to rise up against government agencies deemed to have helped the embattled leader evade the law.

It was Chaiyan, however, who acted in the most symbolic and defiant way. On the one hand, he exercised his right to participate in the process of parliamentary democracy. But on the other, he violated the election law by destroying the ballots, an offence that carries a maximum punishment of one year in jail, a Bt20,000 fine and a five-year suspension of voting rights.

Superficially, it's a simple and clear-cut legal violation. Article 108 of the election law states that anyone who intentionally damages or destroys election ballots is an offender subject to the penalties mentioned above. But Chaiyan is adamant that his "peaceful act" was his right under Article 65 of the Constitution. He argues that the election was by no means a truly democratic one, and that its results could be abused to whitewash a political leader whose legitimacy had all but crumbled.

Whether or not Chaiyan deserves to be punished, his case has raised a highly important question. If a Thai citizen decides that destroying election ballots would be for the country's good, should he or she be punished under the law?

Yes, Chaiyan destroyed the ballots. Yes, he did so intentionally and with extreme defiance. And yes, his act was meant without doubt to disrupt or obstruct the election. But is he malicious or unpatriotic?

An ideal democracy encourages us to participate, but it also allows us to exercise our right to peacefully reject any activity of the mainstream that we deem will not serve our nation's best interest. Chaiyan was opposed to the election, which was boycotted by the opposition bloc and which all critics, including the country's leading thinkers, agreed could worsen the political turmoil. All he did was act on his viewpoint, in the most peaceful, albeit controversial, way he could think of.

Ideal democracy should also mean the right not to participate or to encourage others not to participate, if that right is exercised with a conscience. Chaiyan was afraid that his "no" vote could be counted in a way to "legitimise" a highly controversial election and, later, a highly controversial leader. Was it wrong for him to decide, "all right, I will exercise my voting right to make sure it won't be 'stolen' by unscrupulous groups, but I will not allow my vote to be counted because it may be abused in a process that I never agreed with in the first place"?

If Parliament cannot convene because of all the legal and constitutional questions, Chaiyan's standpoint will be underlined. If the election is nullified, Chaiyan's standpoint will be underlined. His action might not be legally acceptable, but was it done in good faith? More contentiously, is it within the parameters of true democracy?

We see politicians break or show contempt for the law for nasty reasons and get away with it every day. Should Chaiyan be found guilty? Deciding the question is hard enough. Let alone punishing him.