The court's ruling on Wednesday that ordered the Election Commission (EC) to pay out 64 million baht in compensation to a politician it removed from office is a warning sign of tough times ahead for the agency.
The verdict is particularly shocking as it is the first time the EC, an independent state agency overseeing both local and national elections, has lost a court case brought by any of those politicians it has removed from office or ruled ineligible to stand.
Moreover, the agency now faces a dilemma over how to move forward from here, especially when it comes to the evidence it uses when it assembles further cases against political candidates accused of vote-buying.
Indeed, this verdict may have far-reaching consequences as many believe it has set a precedent, and possibly opened a loophole, with regards to charitable donations that politicians are allowed to make during the course of a campaign.
According to the case, Pheu Thai MP Surapol Kietchaiyakorn won the seat for Chiang Mai's Constituency 8 in the last general election with 52,165 votes, but was later disqualified after complaints of vote-buying were made.
The EC ruled that Mr Surapol violated the law that forbids candidates from promising cash or other benefits, directly or indirectly, to communities, temples and schools.
His "crime" was to give away 2,000 baht and a clock to a monk during a merit-making ceremony.
In September 2020, the Supreme Court's Election Division threw out the case filed against him by the EC, prompting Mr Surapol to lodge a defamation suit against the regulator and 14 officials, which he won this week.
It was reported that the court found Mr Surapol had shown no intent to seek favour from the temple by making the donation and accepted his explanation that the 2,000 baht given to a monk was part of a common superstitious ritual, or "Sadoh Kroh," to dispel bad luck.
From the outside looking in, it is obviously difficult to conclude whether the act was genuinely free of an ulterior motive.
Nevertheless, the EC has stood firm that it acted impartially and ruled on the basis of sound evidence, and it is highly likely that the agency will lodge an appeal of its own.
Meanwhile, Mr Surapol has further threatened to sue the EC commissioners and officials in the Administrative Court for negligence in their duty and discriminating against him.
All of which means that the legal war between the EC and Mr Surapol will likely rumble on for a few more years to come.
But in the here and now, the EC cannot afford to sit still and act as if nothing happened.
The agency owes the public an explanation about where it goes from here and who will end up footing the bill should the agency finally lose the case in the Supreme Court.
It is up to the EC to conduct an impartial investigation and make its findings known to the public regarding how it operates and how it weighs its decisions over which politicians to pursue action against when allegations are made.
In addition, it should present an unequivocal definition of what constitutes vote-buying, especially in cases of donations and charity payments.
Without clear guidelines, both the EC and political candidates will be in trouble.
