Section 315:

315. National Assembly – Vacation of seat – Constitution section 37—It is established law that Parliament being sovereign No. 1 is authorised to probe into its internal affairs and in the present case to surmise that it is brewing mischief against the applicant. A series of cases from Lincoln v GovernorGeneral of Mauritius (1973) to Keetarut v Prime Minister (1992) support this proposition. However, it is significant to note that Counsel for both parties have recognised that the Constitution of Mauritius does not permit the Speaker to declare the seat of any member vacant. In fact, by virtue of section 37 of the Constitution the question of loss of membership is not the internal business of Parliament. It is the Supreme Court that is empowered to determine such a matter. It is clear that the Supreme Court will act only when an action is brought by one or more of the persons listed in section 37 (4) (a) and (b) to the effect that a member has vacated his seat. It follows that the Speaker or any other member of the National Assembly or any elector of the State of Mauritius can take steps to declare the seat of the applicant vacant on 27 January 1993 or anytime thereafter “only by bringing an action before the Supreme Court” for the purpose of praying the Court to declare that the applicant’s seat has become vacant, if the claimant thinks that by virtue of section 35 (1) (e) of the Constitution, the applicant has vacated his seat. The respondent is not entitled to restrain the applicant from attending Parliament without having recourse, in the first place, to the Supreme Court. Ramgoolam v Speaker of National Assembly (1993).