JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CASES IN THE SANGHA ADMINISTRATIVE COURT: A STUDY OF THE PROBLEMS RELATED TO MONASTIC DISCIPLINE

Abstract

Abstract

This research article aims to: (1) examine the concepts and theories related to the ecclesiastical administrative system, judicial processes, and disciplinary proceedings concerning violations of monastic discipline and administrative regulations by Buddhist monks; (2) analyze and compare the role of law and the judicial institution of the Thai Sangha in the broader context of the justice system; and (3) propose recommendations for improving the adjudication of disciplinary cases within the Sangha to ensure greater efficiency and fairness, in accordance with both Dhamma-Vinaya principles and legal norms. This qualitative study employs a documentary research method, analyzing legal provisions, academic texts, scholarly documents, rulings of the Administrative Court, and relevant research reports.

The findings reveal that the current judicial mechanism within the Thai Sangha lacks sufficient effectiveness in addressing cases of disciplinary and legal violations. Despite the existence of relevant provisions in the Dhamma-Vinaya, the Sangha Act, and the Supreme Sangha Council’s regulations, the enforcement remains ambiguous in practice—particularly in cases involving monks holding ecclesiastical administrative positions. These cases require a process that is transparent, accountable, and just. The study further finds that the Sangha lacks adequate legal knowledge necessary for administering justice in accordance with the rule of law. The proposed reform includes the amendment of Section 25 of the Sangha Act B.E. 2505 (1962), concerning the role of the “Phra Vinayadhara,” to clearly delineate the authority of adjudicators, who must be independent from the Sangha administrative hierarchy. This aims to establish a more credible and robust ecclesiastical judicial system. Additionally, Regulation No. 11 of the Supreme Sangha Council concerning disciplinary sanctions (Nikkhaggama) should be revised to require the involvement of monks with specific expertise in disciplinary matters and the inclusion of legal professionals as part of the adjudicating body under Clause 23.