Challenging the Pension Reform: Lawyer Sanjeev Teeluckdharry Outlines His Pro Bono Actions

In his constitutional challenge against the eligibility age for universal pension set at 65, lawyer Sanjeev Teeluckdharry plans to summon several institutions, including the Central Electricity Board (CEB), the Central Water Authority (CWA), Mauritius Telecom (MT), various unions, CFAO Ltd, SICOM, Mauritius Commercial Bank Ltd (MCB), and the Mauritius Revenue Authority (MRA), to justify his expenses before the Supreme Court.

Teeluckdharry intends to call representatives from these organizations to the Supreme Court as part of his constitutional challenge against the pension reform. This initiative was outlined in a document submitted in response to a list of 43 questions posed by the state, which seeks clarification on his personal expenditures.

The document was filed on Monday, October 27, 2025, before Chief Justice Bibi Rehana Mungly-Gulbul during the appeal of the lawyer's constitutional challenge against the pension reform. He was represented by attorney Rajen Appa Jala.

In his responses, Teeluckdharry provided a list of pro bono cases he has been involved in, including the challenge against the biometric identity card brought to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, disputes over SIM card registrations, vaccination mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the legal battle regarding medical cannabis use.

Teeluckdharry also mentioned his involvement in the so-called "Stag Party Gate" case, which concerns the former Attorney General. This case is set to be heard again on November 3, 2025, awaiting the other defendants, including Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam, his deputy Paul Bérenger, and Minister of Social Security Ashok Subro, to submit their respective "demands for particulars."

Additionally, another challenge to the pension reform has been brought forth. This involves the case opposing Lindsay Maurice Denys Lamy and Mohamed Ryad Subratty against the state and the Minister of Social Security. The two defendants have each submitted a list of questions to the challengers, inquiring about how the pension reform infringes on the protection of the elderly.

Represented by lawyers Roshi Bhadain and Yash Balgobin, the plaintiffs argue that there is discrimination involved. The case has been adjourned to November 10, 2025.