The legal system of Mauritius is derived from several sources, having inherited legal principles from French civil law and English common law. The Constitution of the Republic of Mauritius (the Constitution) is the supreme law of Mauritius. It ranks above any other legislation adopted by the Mauritian Parliament, including the Mauritian Civil Code, which governs civil matters, and the Criminal Code, which deals with criminal offences. To the extent that any other law is inconsistent with the Constitution, it shall be void.

Prior to 2023 and the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Abdool Ridwan Firaas Ah Seek v State of Mauritius (2023) (Ah Seek) Section 250 of the Criminal Code criminalised the act of sodomy, making it an offence punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. While the law did not explicitly discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (the offence of sodomy included at Section 250 of the Criminal Code applied equally in respect of same-sex and opposite-sex acts), same-sex relations were disproportionately at risk of being caught by Section 250. Despite this, sodomy cases that came before the courts appear largely to have involved heterosexual relations, including non-consensual acts between persons of the opposite sex or in the context of divorce proceedings where it had been cited as an aggravating factor. 

In Ah Seek, the complainant, Mr Ah Seek challenged the constitutionality of Section 250 at the Supreme Court of Mauritius, claiming that the criminal offence was discriminatory and in contravention of his rights under Article 3 of the Constitution, whereby Mauritius guarantees its citizens fundamental rights and freedoms, “without discrimination by reason of race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed or sex”, including “(a) the right…to life, liberty, security of the person and the protection of the law; (b) freedom of conscience, of expression, of assembly and association…; and (c) the right of the individual to protection for the privacy of his home…”.

Drawing on comparative case law from foreign jurisdictions, the Supreme Court interpreted the phrase “without discrimination by reason of … sex” in Article 3 as including “sexual orientation”, thereby following the approach adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in its decision in Toonen v Australia (1994). Having done so, the Supreme Court concluded that Section 250 of the Criminal Code was in contravention of the Constitution and deemed it unconstitutional, insofar as it applied to consensual acts between adults in private.

Freedom of expression is protected under Article 12(1) of the Constitution which states: “Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference, and freedom from interference with his correspondence.” Article 12(2) permits some limited exceptions to this, for example, where it is in the interests of defence, public safety, public morality or public order and so far as it is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.

In Ah Seek, alongside the argument that Section 250 of the Criminal Code infringed rights under Article 3, it was further argued that Section 250 was similarly incompatible with the freedom of expression protected under Article 12. Ultimately, the Supreme Court did not opine on whether the applicant’s right to freedom of expression was violated by the continuation in force of section 250 of the Criminal Code, having already found such provision to be discriminatory. However, notably,  Article 12(1) of the Constitution of Botswana employs identical wording in its protection of freedom of expression contained in the Constitution, and it was successfully argued in the case of Matshidiemang v Attorney General (2019) that similar provisions criminalising sodomy were incompatible with Article 12(1). 

According to the ILGA World Database, there are no other laws or regulations in Mauritius that specifically address freedom of expression in relation to sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and/or sex characteristics. There are similarly no laws in Mauritius prohibiting hate speech towards the LGBTQI+ community. Section 282 of the Criminal Code prohibits “stirring up racial hatred” against any person on the basis of their “race, caste, place of origin, political opinion, colour or creed”. However, no analogous protections against hate speech on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity exist.

The Equal Opportunities Act 2008, which came into effect on 1 January 2012, was the first piece of legislation in Mauritius to specifically include sexual orientation within its definition of discrimination. The act protects individuals in their day-to-day lives in a variety of situations. For example, Section 18 prevents providers of goods and services from discriminating against customers by refusing to provide said goods and services on the basis of their sexual orientation; Section 23 also ensures that individuals cannot be refused entry to any premises, or be required to leave, solely because of their sexuality; and Section 17 prohibits discrimination by educational institutions against current and prospective students (subject to certain exceptions).

The Equal Opportunities Act 2008, which came into effect on 1 January 2012, was the first piece of legislation in Mauritius to specifically include sexual orientation within its definition of discrimination. The act protects individuals in their day-to-day lives in a variety of situations. For example, Section 18 prevents providers of goods and services from discriminating against customers by refusing to provide said goods and services on the basis of their sexual orientation; Section 23 also ensures that individuals cannot be refused entry to any premises, or be required to leave, solely because of their sexuality; and Section 17 prohibits discrimination by educational institutions against current and prospective students (subject to certain exceptions).

The Civil Code and the Civil Status Act 1981, which outlines the process for getting married, define marriage as a “civil or religious marriage” (see Civil Status Act 1981 Section 2 – Interpretation). While neither Act directly prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex, the Civil Code provides that only civil marriages (and religious marriages having civil effect) are recognised in Mauritius. Notably, language used throughout the Civil Code implies such marriages as being between an “époux” (husband) and an “épouse” (wife) (see, for example, 228-4; 728; 1113; 1983-74). 

While the Constitution also does not prohibit same-sex marriages, the courts have not yet ruled on whether the prohibition on discrimination on the grounds of sex guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. Consequently, homosexual couples married in a different jurisdiction may not have their marriages recognised in Mauritius, potentially depriving them of rights and protections usually granted to married couples. For example, according to the Passport and Immigration Office, a foreigner married to a Mauritian citizen may be refused residency on the grounds that a residence permit is only available to non-citizens who are “civilly” married to a citizen.

Moreover, according to the ILGA World Database, neither joint adoption nor second parent adoption is legally permitted for same-sex couples in Mauritius.

In 2013, the Equal Opportunities Commission, an independent statutory body set up under the Equal Opportunities Act 2008, carried out extensive research into the screening process for blood donations after receiving a complaint against the Blood Donors Association and the Ministry of Health. As part of the screening process, donors had to self-report whether they had engaged in homosexual activity. If a donor had, they would be permanently disqualified from donating blood. 

The Commission concluded that this screening process was discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation, noting that “it targets a particular group of people, that is homosexuals, as opposed to a certain act, that is, a sexual activity that be classified as risky“. Subsequently, the Ministry of Health agreed to reform its policy and reframe the question to whether the donor had engaged in risky sexual activity, namely oral or anal intercourse. As sodomy was still a criminal offence at this time, the Ministry of Health also agreed to provide an explicit assurance that any information provided by donors as part of the screening process would remain confidential.

While the Constitution protects fundamental rights, there are no explicit protections for transgender or intersex individuals, and no formal protection of gender recognition. As a result, the Young Queer Alliance (YQA) reported in their June 2025 Policy Brief that “transgender people continue facing discrimination, stigmatisation and violence for being LGBTQ at home/within their family; in the society in general; in educational settings; in public transport/on the streets; and at a workplace”.

Although Mauritius does have a legal mechanism for rectifying official records and changing a person’s legal name under Parts VI and VII of the Civil Status Act 1981, these are subject to approval by the Ministère Public or the Attorney-General. According to the YQA’s June 2025 Policy Brief, “there are no records of transgender persons having been able to change their assigned gender marker to their ‘desired’ or ‘real’ gender…through legal means.”

The YQA further noted that transgender people in Mauritius have reported experiencing assault because of their gender identity and having had difficulties accessing legal justice as a result of officials refusing to register their complaints. 

Transgender individuals living in Mauritius also face challenges with regards to healthcare. According to a March 2025 Comparative Legal Analysis in Respect of Transgender Rights, these include:

• “an absence of practice protocols, guidelines and frameworks when it comes to specific hormonal treatments…;

• inaccessibility to sex reassignment surgery in hospitals;

• prohibitive cost of hormonal therapy in private hospitals when the treatments are not available or prescribed in public hospitals;

• unwillingness among qualified medical practitioners to prescribe hormone therapy due to lack of established protocol or official framework;

• lack of guidelines on gender transition services and ambiguous legal status of transgender people; and

• scarcity of health-care providers who are well versed with transgender health issues.”

Treaties and conventions

Mauritius is party to several international human rights treaties and conventions that are relevant to the protection of LGBTQI+ individuals. 

Mauritius ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in 1992 and accepts the inquiry procedure under Article 20, which allows the Committee Against Torture to initiate a confidential investigation if it receives reliable information indicating that torture is being systematically practised in a State party. It ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1973 and accepts individual complaints under the optional protocol. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was notably relied upon in the landmark case Abdool Ridwan Firaas Ah Seek v State of Mauritius (discussed above), with the Supreme Court citing the decision of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in Toonen v Australia in holding that sexual orientation falls within the scope of the non-discrimination protections in the Constitution.

Mauritius has also ratified the following treaties:

• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1984; accepting individual complaints and inquiry process)
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1972)
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1973; does not accept individual complaints or an inquiry process)
• Convention on the Rights of the Child (1980)
• International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2010; does not accept individual complaints or an inquiry process under the optional protocol)

Despite this broad treaty participation, Mauritius has been slow to implement comprehensive protections for LGBTQI+ individuals under domestic law, reflected by the volume and nature of recommendations Mauritius continues to receive from international bodies urging further legislative reform and anti-discrimination measures (see, for example, UNHRC Report of the Working Group for the 4th Cycle of the UPR, 2024, discussed below).

International commentary (before the Supreme Court’s decision in Ah Seek)

Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Abdool Ridwan Firaas Ah Seek v State of Mauritius, Mauritius faced repeated calls from international bodies to decriminalise same-sex relations and strengthen protections for LGBTQI+ persons. The UNHCR Report of the Working Group for the 3rd Cycle of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) highlighted in 2018 that Mauritius had received 14 recommendations from other states urging decriminalisation and anti-discrimination measures for sexual orientation and gender identity. 

Since 2016, according to the ILGA World Database, treaty bodies including the Human Rights Committee (the treaty body of independent experts that monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women issued 13 recommendations also addressing the criminalisation of same-sex relations and the need for greater legal protections.

Notably, and as cited in a Compilation of Information on Mauritius prepared in 2023 by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights as part of the 4th Cycle of the UPR:

“The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women recommended adopting the legislative and policy measures necessary to combat discrimination and violence against lesbian, bisexual and transgender women and intersex persons, promoting their protection, ensuring that law enforcement mechanisms efficiently protected their rights and providing them with access to shelters and assistance.” (CEDAW, 2018).

“The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressed concern that same-sex relations were still criminalized under the Criminal Code and about the absence of any legal recognition of same-sex couples. It recommended repealing section 250 of the Criminal Code, fully protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons from discrimination and providing for legal recognition of same-sex unions or partnerships.” (CESCR, 2019).

In July 2023, a Joint Submission by YQA and ILGA World (see here for the cover page and full submission) was prepared for the consideration of the UNHRC’s 4th Cycle of the UPR. The submission further highlighted the ongoing legal and social barriers faced by LGBTQI+ individuals in Mauritius. It indicated that the continued persecutions against human dignity and violations of individual rights and freedoms of LGBTQI+ persons in Mauritius highlighted the severe and serious non-compliance of the state to international conventions and human rights standards.

International commentary (following the Supreme Court’s decision in Ah Seek)

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and other UN agencies have welcomed the ruling of the Supreme Court in Ah Seek:

“The Supreme Court today overturned an obsolete colonial law and demonstrated its commitment to non-discrimination and leaving no-one behind, […]. The UN in Mauritius and internationally welcomes the decision of Mauritius to join the growing list of African countries protecting the human rights of everyone, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI+) people”.

“This is an important victory for human rights, dignity and public health, as there is strong evidence that removing criminal laws on consensual adult homosexual sex results in reduced new HIV infections and increased access to prevention and treatment”.

The UNHRC Report of the Working Group for the 4th Cycle of the UPR noted that a wide range of countries had welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling. For instance, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Mexico and the United States welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling and applauded the decriminalisation of consensual same-sex conduct.

The Report also states that the following recommendations were made and will be examined by Mauritius. As of now, Mauritius has noted these recommendations. (In the UPR process, “noted” means the State under review does not commit to implementing the recommendation, whereas “supported” indicates a formal commitment to do so before the next review cycle.)

• Formally repeal Section 250 of the Penal Code, which criminalises consensual same-sex relations and was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Ah Seek (Belgium, Finland, United Kingdom, Austria).
• Revise the Equal Opportunities Act, with a view to ensuring the prohibition of all direct, indirect and intersectional forms of discrimination, including gender identity (Romania).
• Advance in the protection of the rights of LGBTQI+ people through public policies and awareness-raising programmes for public employees (Spain).
• Ensure the full protection of the LGBTQI+ community against discrimination (Chile).
• Adopt legislative and regulatory measures necessary to combat discrimination and violence against persons of diverse sexual orientations, gender identities, gender expressions and sex characteristics, and investigate all complaints of violence and hate speech, ensuring accountability (Iceland, Uruguay).

Mauritius scored 54 out of 100 on the Legal Equality Index 2025, which measures the extent to which LGBTQI+ individuals enjoy equal rights. The index considers 15 policy areas including relationship recognition, gender marker changes, censorship, discrimination protections, and access to gender-affirming care. It is unclear what specific information or data sources were used to calculate Mauritius’s score, or how the country performed in each of the individual categories. By comparison, Chile, Germany, Malta, and Spain scored the highest (100).