Information and Communication Technologies Act 2001, Section 46 (online communications offences, as amended) (Mauritius)

Section 46 of Mauritius's Information and Communication Technologies Act 2001 (Act 44 of 2001) is the principal provision criminalising online and electronic communications in Mauritius, and it is the focal point of the country's digital-rights debate over freedom of expression. Section 46(ga) makes it an offence to use a telecommunication or information and communication service, including the internet and social media, to send, deliver or display a message that is 'obscene, indecent, abusive, threatening, false or misleading' and that is likely to cause or causes 'annoyance, humiliation, inconvenience, distress or anxiety' to any person. Related paragraphs criminalise the misuse of ICT services and the use of fictitious identities online. The provision was significantly broadened by the Information and Communication Technologies (Amendment) Act 2018, which removed the previous requirement (under the former section 46(h)(ii)) to prove an intention to cause annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety. By dropping that mental element, the amendment made it materially easier for the prosecution to secure convictions for online speech, and expanded the provision's reach over ordinary social-media activity, criticism and commentary. This entry is included in the Digital Rights collection because Section 46 is the operative legal mechanism through which online expression is policed in Mauritius. Civil-society and digital-rights organisations (including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ARTICLE 19) have criticised the breadth and vagueness of the 'annoyance' standard, drawing comparisons with Section 66A of India's Information Technology Act, which the Supreme Court of India struck down as unconstitutional. The constitutionality of section 46(ga), measured against the freedom-of-expression guarantee in section 12 of the Mauritian Constitution, has been challenged before the Supreme Court of Mauritius; this entry does not assert a final ruling, and the current status should be verified. Enforcement lies with the police, supported by the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA), the sector regulator. The strength of safeguards should not be overstated: the offence carries no statutory public-interest or journalistic defence, and oversight of online-speech prosecutions is exercised through the ordinary criminal courts rather than any specialised body. The provision sits alongside, and overlaps with, Mauritius's Cybersecurity and Cybercrime Act 2021 (to which this entry is cross-referenced), but it remains the primary route for prosecuting online communications.

1. 1Section 46(ga): offence to send via ICT/telecom services a message that is obscene, indecent, abusive, threatening, false or misleading and likely to cause annoyance, humiliation, inconvenience, distress or anxiety
2. 22018 amendment (ICT (Amendment) Act 2018) removed the requirement to prove intent, broadening liability for online speech
3. 3Captures social-media posts, messaging and online commentary; no statutory public-interest or journalistic defence
4. 4Enforced by the police with the ICTA as sector regulator; tried in the ordinary criminal courts
5. 5Constitutionality of s.46(ga) challenged before the Supreme Court of Mauritius against section 12 (freedom of expression), status to be verified
6. 6Criticised by EFF and ARTICLE 19 as overbroad and compared to India's struck-down section 66A IT Act