## Overview The **Constitutional Court of Thailand** (officially the Constitutional Court of the Kingdom of Thailand) is the apex judicial body responsible for safeguarding the constitution, upholding the rule of law, and protecting democratic values and human rights in Thailand[1][2]. Established under the 1997 Constitution, it represents a significant institutional innovation aimed at reinforcing constitutional supremacy and checking the powers of the legislative and executive branches[2][7]. ## Functions and Jurisdiction The Court’s primary role is to adjudicate the constitutionality of laws, royal decrees, draft legislation, and parliamentary rules, ensuring they align with the constitution[1][2][4]. It also resolves disputes over the authority of government branches and independent agencies, monitors the integrity of general elections, and can disqualify public officials for constitutional violations[1][4][7]. Its decisions are final and not subject to appeal[9]. Over the years, the Court has built a substantial body of constitutional case law, shaping Thailand’s political landscape and reinforcing public trust through landmark rulings[3]. ## History and Evolution The Constitutional Court was first created in 1997 as part of Thailand’s democratic reforms. However, it was dissolved following the 2006 military coup and replaced by a Constitutional Tribunal. The current Court was reinstated under the 2007 Constitution, with a revised composition and appointment process[2]. Historically, the Court’s independence and the selection of justices have been subjects of public debate, reflecting broader tensions between judicial oversight and political influence[2][7]. ## Key Achievements and Current Status The Court has played a pivotal role during Thailand’s recurring political crises, including the turbulent post-2006 period, by adjudicating high-profile cases involving election disputes, constitutional amendments, and the removal of officials[3][7]. Its rulings have sometimes been controversial, with critics arguing about judicial overreach, while supporters highlight its role in preserving democratic norms and preventing constitutional violations[2