"The judges, in terms of their mentality and style of work, are no different from other government officials. I'm criticising the courts in Thailand … I think the development of Thai judges cannot follow either domestic or global trends," Nidhi said. "The judges are no more progressive than other bureaucrats. I don't know if they're more astute."

Nidhi cited the judiciary system's failure to recognise and push towards the realisation of people's broadcasting under Article 40 of the 1997 constitution. Some community radio operators who were arrested due to the lack of an organic law to support Article 40 were sentenced by the courts, despite the fact that the courts should have recognised their rights under the 1997 charter.

"The Thai courts system should catch up with the charter," he said.

Nidhi, a co-founder of Midnight University, and a leading pro-people intellectual, said society was under the misconception that judges worked on behalf of His Majesty the King.

"Don't be misled that a court verdict is made on behalf of the King," he said. "I don't agree with the saying that because the courts are associated with the King, they have influence in Thai society. I consider this a misunderstanding and a result of a distorted teaching of law."

Nidhi claimed that the judges signed their verdict under the King's name because the King represented the supreme collective power of all citizens.

"Don't confuse that for the court acting on behalf of the King."

Subhatra Bhumiprabhas,

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation