The Supreme Court of Mauritius has reserved its judgment on a constitutional challenge to the country's pension reform laws. The case, which was heard on Tuesday, 22 September 2026, centered on whether the legal challenge against raising the state pension eligibility age to 65 still holds grounds. The challenge was filed by Mr. and Mrs. Sariffudin and Bibi Raheza Jaulim. State counsel argued that the case is now legally moot following amendments to the Finance Act.
The state counsel, Me Priya Varma, Senior Counsel and Assistant Solicitor General, urged the court to dismiss the constitutional complaint. Varma argued that there is no longer a “live issue” to contest because Section 39 of the Finance Act 2025 has since been amended and replaced by Section 12 of the Finance Act 2026. This amendment rendered the original challenge obsolete, according to the state counsel. The judges presiding over the case were Iqbal Maghooa and Aruna Narain.
Me Yvan Jean Louis, Senior Counsel and Assistant Solicitor General representing the State, formally supported the application to have the complaint thrown out. However, counsel Me Sanjeev Teeluckdharry, who represented the complainants, strongly opposed the dismissal. The court will deliver its verdict at a later date, which has not been specified. The pension reform laws have been contentious, with various stakeholders weighing in on the implications of raising the state pension eligibility age.
The court proceedings also addressed several interconnected legal actions related to the pension reform. A separate constitutional complaint brought forward by Rose-Hill inhabitants Keseven Naidu and Loganaden Vele Arnassalon is scheduled to be heard immediately following the conclusion of the Jaulim couple’s case. This case also challenges the pension reform laws. The Rose-Hill residents' case will be heard on the same day as two other related matters.
In a separate personal complaint filed by Me Sanjeev Teeluckdharry, and another involving teacher Nishal Joyram, counsel did not object to Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam, Paul Bérenger, and Ashok Subron being removed as parties to the action. Both of these related matters will be called before the court on 26 October 2026. The series of connected cases highlights the complexity and breadth of the legal challenges to the pension reform laws.
The pension reform laws have been a subject of significant debate in Mauritius. The laws aim to adjust the state pension eligibility age to 65. Various stakeholders, including labor unions and advocacy groups, have expressed concerns about the impact of these changes on retirees and the broader workforce. The Supreme Court's decision is expected to provide clarity on the constitutionality of these laws.
The Supreme Court's judgment will have significant implications for Mauritius, particularly for those affected by the pension reform laws. Key stakeholders are watching the case closely, as it will determine the future of the pension system in the country. The court's decision will also set a precedent for similar cases in the future.
Key points
- The Supreme Court of Mauritius reserves judgment on a constitutional challenge to pension reform laws.
- The challenge, filed by Mr. and Mrs. Sariffudin and Bibi Raheza Jaulim, contests the raising of the state pension eligibility age to 65.
- The court's decision will have significant implications for Mauritius, particularly for those affected by the pension reform laws.
