The Constitutional Court on Wednesday rejected a cabinet petition asking it to clarify the meaning of the term, "a lack of clear honesty", saying the request involved a matter of legal interpretation so did not meet the criteria for a review.
The petition, submitted by Prime Minister's Office Minister Chousak Sirinil as instructed by the cabinet, focused on Section 160 of the constitution and Section 9 of the Holders of Political Positions Act.
Section 160 of the charter outlines the qualifications required to become a cabinet minister and political office-holder. It says ministers must demonstrate clear honesty and must not have committed any serious ethical violations.
Section 9 of the Holders of Political Positions Act says these individuals must meet moral standards.
The cabinet's petition is widely believed to be linked to the removal of Srettha Thavisin as prime minister by the Constitutional Court in August last year over an ethical violation related to his appointment of former convict Pichit Chuenban as a cabinet minister.
According to that ruling, the prime minister must exercise sound judgement when appointing cabinet ministers for royal approval.
The court itself is empowered to rule on matters involving the roles and powers of the House of Representatives, the Senate, parliament, the cabinet or public independent agencies under Section 210 of the charter and the organic law on Procedures of the Constitutional Court.
The court on Wednesday said any request for a ruling must directly concern the duties and powers prescribed in the constitution and any petition filed must be submitted after a dispute has already occurred.
It said the cabinet's petition was merely seeking an interpretation and clarification of constitutional provisions, rather than a resolution of a dispute over duties and powers, so it did not meet the criteria for a judicial review.
The court ruled 8 to 1 to reject the petition, with the minority judge said to be Udom Sitthiwirattham, who argued the petition met the necessary criteria for consideration.
Earlier, Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra said the request for the court's interpretation was unrelated to any potential cabinet reshuffle but noted that the government wanted to prevent any future complaints regarding ethical violations.
Following Mr Srettha's removal, some analysts speculated that Section 160 could also be used against her.