The India–Mauritius BIT was terminated with effect from 22 March 2017, and its sunset clause protects investments approved or made before that date until about 22 March 2027, unless a contract or approval granted to the investor provides a longer period. A group that holds Indian assets through Mauritius and has a dispute over a central or state government measure has to decide now whether to start the treaty process, because the treaty’s six-month settlement period already runs past March 2027 for any request sent today. Moving the holding out of the Mauritius company ends treaty standing for those holdings for measures taken after the move. The treaty does not say what happens to a claim for a measure taken before the move, including a claim already commenced.

Table of Contents

When India–Mauritius BIT protection ends

The termination date. The Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) table of bilateral investment treaties lists the Mauritius agreement as signed on 04.09.1998, in force from 20.06.2000 and terminated on 22.03.2017. DEA is the Government of India’s own record.

How termination worked. Under Article 13(2), the Agreement “shall remain in force for a period of ten years”, then until “twelve months from the date on which either Contracting Party shall have given written notice of termination”. The initial term ended in June 2010. The notice itself is not on the DEA page.

The sunset clause. Article 13(3) reads:

“In respect of investments approved and /or made prior to the date the notice of termination of this Agreement becomes effective, the provisions of the proceeding articles shall remain in force with respect to such investments for a further period of ten years from that date or for any longer period as provided for or agreed upon in the relevant contract or approval granted to the investor.”

Three things follow from that text:

Only investments “approved and /or made” before 22 March 2017 are covered. “Approved and/or” suggests that an approval granted before that date may be enough, even if money went in later. Whether capital added after 2017 to a pre-2017 investment is covered is a question of interpretation.
The ten years run “from that date”, so protection ends on about 22 March 2027. The text does not settle whether 21 or 22 March is the last day. Treat 21 March 2027 as the safe last day.
A longer period can apply if it is “provided for or agreed upon in the relevant contract or approval granted to the investor”. The clause does not say what kind of term counts. A contract or approval that expressly refers to a period of protection is the clearest case. A licence or concession that simply runs beyond March 2027 does not by itself extend protection: the instrument must provide for or agree a longer period, and whether its terms do so is a question of interpretation.

Ten years is shorter than the fifteen years in several of India’s other terminated BITs, such as the UK treaty (Art 15, India–UK BIT 1994). Each treaty’s own expiry date is in the investment treaty tracker. Tax-treaty rates and anti-abuse clauses for the same partners are in the India DTAA rates comparison.

What survives is “the proceeding articles”, meaning the preceding ones (Articles 1 to 12): fair and equitable treatment (Art 4(1)), national and MFN treatment (Art 4(2), (3)), expropriation, including of the assets of an Indian company in which the investor holds shares (Art 6(1), (3)), transfers (Art 7), investor–State arbitration (Art 8) and the undertaking to “honour any obligation” (Art 11(4)). The BIT has no general tax carve-out (Article 4(4)(b) limits only national and MFN treatment for tax matters) and no local-remedies requirement. India’s newer treaties differ: the 2024 India–UAE BIT excludes “any measure regarding taxation” (Art 2.4(ii)) and requires local remedies to be pursued first (Art 17.1).

The six-month step: why the last day is not a plan

Article 8(1) requires a dispute to be settled “as far as possible … amicably through negotiations”. Article 8(2) lets the investor go further only “If such dispute cannot be settled … within six months from the date of request for settlement”. The options are:

“arbitration in accordance to the law of the Contracting Party” (Art 8(2)(a));
ICSID, if both States are parties to the ICSID Convention and the investor consents in writing (Art 8(2)(b));
UNCITRAL conciliation (Art 8(2)(c)); or
an ad hoc tribunal under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 (Art 8(2)(d)).

A forum once chosen cannot be changed without India’s consent (Art 8(3)). Under the 1976 Rules, proceedings “shall be deemed to commence on the date on which the notice of arbitration is received by the respondent” (Art 3(2), UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976). Sending the notice is not enough; India must receive it.

The arithmetic. To submit a claim before the sunset ends after the full six months, the request for settlement had to be made by about 21–22 September 2026. That date has passed. A request sent on 29 October 2026 completes six months on about 29 April 2027, after the sunset ends.

That leaves two unsettled questions:

Submitting before the six months have run. The treaty does not say whether the waiting period limits India’s consent to arbitration or is only a procedural step. India can be expected to object that a claim submitted early falls outside its consent.
Submitting after 22 March 2027 for an earlier measure. Article 13(3) keeps “the provisions” in force “for a further period of ten years”. That includes Article 8. It does not say whether a dispute that arose within that period can be submitted after it ends. This is a question of interpretation, and the text does not settle it.

A group can send a written request for settlement now, record the date India receives it, and prepare a notice of arbitration that India can receive before 21 March 2027 if needed. That notice does not necessarily preserve jurisdiction: a premature notice may fail a condition of India’s consent, and the effect of a later notice is unsettled. Neither route is free of jurisdictional risk.

Worked example. M Ltd was incorporated in Mauritius in 2008 and has held 30% of an Indian company since 2012. In August 2026 a state government cancels the Indian company’s mining lease. M Ltd sends a request for settlement on 5 November 2026. The six months run to 5 May 2027. M Ltd can:

have a notice of arbitration received by India before 21 March 2027, which risks a prematurity objection; or
wait until May 2027, which risks the objection that Article 8 is no longer in force.

If M Ltd is controlled by Indian promoters, paragraph 4(b) of the 2022 statement (below) may end the claim before timing matters.

What the 2022 Joint Interpretative Statement changes

India and Mauritius signed a Joint Interpretative Statement at Port Louis on 11 July 2022, five years after termination. Being “co-terminus with the Agreement”, it applies for as long as the BIT does: the sunset period. The statement’s paragraphs are unnumbered; the numbers below are ours.

Para	Text (extract)	Effect on a sunset claim
2	“integral and binding part of the Agreement … co-terminus with the Agreement”	Read with the BIT for every claim brought in the sunset
3	protection “shall not be extended to investors or investments that have, concluded or pending, judicial or administrative proceedings against them at any stage, where fraud, money-laundering, round-tripping or corruption or similar illegal mechanisms have been alleged or being investigated into”	On its apparent wording, concluded or pending proceedings in which such conduct is alleged or investigated are enough, without a finding. The validity, scope and application of this exclusion can be contested before a tribunal
4(a)	“investor” excludes entities “owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by persons of a non-Contracting Party, that have been alleged to have indulged in fraud, money-laundering, or corruption or similar illegal mechanisms”	Allegations against third-country owners count
4(b)	excludes entities “owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by persons of the other Contracting Party”	A Mauritius company owned or controlled by Indian persons is not an “investor”
4(c)	excludes entities that “do not have substantial business activities in the territory of the Contracting Party to which the investor belongs”	A holding company with no substance in Mauritius is excluded
5	a tribunal “shall not have the jurisdiction to review the merits of the decision made by a judicial authority of the Parties”	Where an Indian court has decided on a tax demand or cancellation, the tribunal cannot review the merits of that decision
6	“only award monetary compensation”; it “shall not be greater than the actual loss (excluding incidental, consequential and special amounts, such as future profits …)”	No restitution; no lost future profits

The 1998 text defines a company investor by incorporation alone (Art 1(1)(b)(ii)). Ownership and substance tests come only from the statement. Two questions remain open:

The statement does not say whether it applies to claims already pending when it was signed. It also does not say how a 2022 interpretation applies to investments made before the 2017 termination. Its effect on those investments and on pending claims is contestable, and a tribunal may decline to apply its new restrictions retrospectively.
The cap in paragraph 6 sits uneasily with the “market value” standard for expropriation in Article 6(1).

Both points are for a tribunal. Neither should be assumed in the investor’s favour.

Who is a Mauritius investor, and what restructuring does

Under Article 1(1)(b)(ii), a company investor is a legal person “incorporated or constituted in accordance with the law of that Contracting Party”. Standing depends on who holds the investment. Once the holding leaves the Mauritius company, the new holder must qualify on its own for measures taken after the move. A claim for a measure taken before the move, including one already commenced, is a separate question. The treaty does not answer it; the outcome depends on the ownership history, the date of the measure and the rules on standing and assignment.

Step	Effect on BIT standing
Merge the Mauritius company into the Indian company (an inbound merger, see reverse flipping into India)	No Mauritius investor remains for those holdings
Move the holding to an Indian company, including an entity in GIFT IFSC	An Indian entity is not a Mauritius investor and has no treaty claim against India
Relocate a Mauritius fund to GIFT IFSC under s.70	The resultant fund is “a fund established or incorporated in India” (s.70(2), Table item 5(c), Income-tax Act 2025). The relief is tax only, for funds relocating on or before 31 March 2030; it gives no treaty standing
Move the holding to another Mauritius company after 22 March 2017	Whether the investment was “made” before termination by the new holder is a question of interpretation; the 2022 statement applies to the new company too
Move the holding to Singapore	India–Singapore CECA Chapter 6 is in force, with investor–State arbitration (Art 6.21) and 15 years’ survival after termination (Art 6.24). But see the conditions below

Under the Singapore CECA:

an “enterprise” excludes an entity with “negligible or nil business operations or with no real and continuous business activities” in Singapore (Art 6.1(6));
India may deny benefits where the enterprise “has no substantial business operations” in Singapore “or” where “investors of the denying Party own or control the enterprise” (Art 6.9). An Indian-owned Singapore company falls within the second limb;
the investor must first seek consultations for six months (Art 6.21(3)), and consent to ICSID or UNCITRAL arbitration depends on submitting the claim within three years of when the investor became aware, or should reasonably have become aware, of the breach and the loss, after at least 30 days’ written notice that waives other proceedings (Art 6.21(4)).

There is also a wider risk. Changing the nationality of a holding when a specific dispute is already foreseeable risks being treated as an abuse of process, so that the claim cannot proceed under the new treaty. India’s newer treaties write this into the text: the 2024 India–UAE BIT denies benefits to an investor “established or restructured … with the primary purpose of gaining access to the dispute resolution mechanisms” (Art 36.1(ii)). A group that re-routes a holding after a tax demand, show-cause notice or cancellation should expect this objection.

The tax side of each option is in Mauritius holding company options after the 2026 Protocol, and substance in holding jurisdiction, treaty access and substance. Treaty standing is a separate check.

After the sunset, nothing replaces the BIT

India and Mauritius signed the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation and Partnership Agreement (CECPA) on 22 February 2021 (PIB, 23 February 2021). It covers trade in goods and services, SPS, technical barriers and trade remedies (Art 1.3(1)(a)), and has no investment chapter. Its dispute settlement is State to State: the “Complaining Party” is a Party (Art 7.2). It does not apply “to any direct taxation measure” (Art 1.3(1)(b)).

Once the sunset ends, no India–Mauritius instrument protects investments held through Mauritius, unless Article 13(3)’s longer period applies. Protection can then come only from a parent’s own treaty, if it covers indirect holdings. The 2024 India–UAE BIT covers investments “owned or controlled, directly or indirectly” by a UAE investor (Art 1.4), with waivers from intermediate entities (Art 17.4(iv)). But it excludes tax measures (Art 2.4(ii)) and events before 31 August 2024 (Art 2.3), and read literally its denial of benefits reaches an investment “owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by juridical entities … of a non-Party” (Art 36.1(i)), such as a Mauritius company. Whether a UAE parent can claim through Mauritius is a question of interpretation.

Otherwise what remains is contractual: an arbitration clause in a government contract, its seat, any waiver of immunity, and political-risk insurance. Protections that do not depend on a treaty are covered in the India bilateral investment treaty guide.

The tax treaty runs on a different clock

The Protocol adding a principal purpose test (Art 27B) to the India–Mauritius tax treaty is a separate instrument, in force and with effect from 10 August 2026 (Art 3; S.O. 5611(E), 13 October 2026). Neither affects the other. For funds, see India–Mauritius DTAA and fund relocation to GIFT City. On a sale of Indian shares, the pre-2017 position under the Mauritius treaty is set beside the other treaties in where India still can’t tax your exit.

Before March 2027: what to check

List each central or state measure affecting the investment (tax demands, cancellations, contract breaches, regulatory orders) and its date.
Confirm each investment was made or approved before 22 March 2017, with the records.
Check any contract or approval for a period extending protection beyond March 2027.
Test direct and indirect ownership and control of the Mauritius company against paragraph 4(a) and (b) of the 2022 statement, and preserve evidence of its substantial business activities in Mauritius (para 4(c)).
List any proceedings alleging fraud, money-laundering, round-tripping or corruption (para 3), and any court decisions on the measure (para 5).
If no request for settlement has been sent, consider sending it now, record the date India receives it, and weigh the two timing risks above.
Do not merge, transfer or relocate the holding before considering treaty standing, including the abuse-of-process risk.

Common questions

Is the India–Mauritius BIT still in force? It was terminated with effect from 22 March 2017 (DEA). Under Article 13(3), its provisions remain in force for investments approved or made before then until about 22 March 2027, or longer where a contract or approval provides.

When does the Mauritius BIT sunset clause end? Ten years from 22 March 2017, so about 22 March 2027. Treat 21 March 2027 as the safe last day.

Can I still bring a claim under the India–Mauritius BIT? Until the sunset ends, for an investment approved or made before 22 March 2017, subject to the 2022 statement. A new request for settlement now completes its six months after March 2027, which creates timing risk.

Does a Mauritius company owned by Indians qualify? Not on the 2022 Joint Interpretative Statement, which excludes from “investor” entities “owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by persons of the other Contracting Party”. How a tribunal will apply the 2022 statement to investments made before 2017 is not settled.

Does moving a Mauritius fund to GIFT City keep treaty protection? No. A GIFT IFSC fund is established in India, so it is not a Mauritius investor. Section 70 relocation is a tax relief only.

Does the India–Mauritius CECPA protect investments? No. It has no investment chapter and no investor–State dispute settlement.

Sources

Agreement between India and Mauritius for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed 4 September 1998 (Arts 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13). Government of India, DEA. dea.gov.in
DEA, “Documents – Bilateral Investment Treaties”, listing page 6 (Mauritius: 04.09.1998 / 20.06.2000 / 22.03.2017), viewed 29 October 2026. dea.gov.in
Joint Interpretative Statement to the India–Mauritius Agreement of 4 September 1998, signed at Port Louis on 11 July 2022. Government of India, DEA. dea.gov.in (listed by DEA as “The Agreement Between India And Mauritius signed on 4th september 1998”, 9.42 MB)
UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976, Arts 2(1) and 3(2). United Nations, 1976 (text reproduced at italaw). italaw.com
India–Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, signed 29 June 2005, Chapter 6 (Investment), Arts 6.1, 6.9, 6.21, 6.24. Ministry of Commerce and Industry. commerce.gov.in (index page; exact chapter URL not confirmed)
India–Mauritius Comprehensive Economic Cooperation and Partnership Agreement, signed 22 February 2021, Arts 1.3, 7.2. Ministry of Commerce and Industry. commerce.gov.in (URL not confirmed on 29 October 2026)
PIB, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, “India and Mauritius sign CECPA”, 23 February 2021. pib.gov.in
Bilateral Investment Treaty between India and the UAE, signed 13 February 2024, in force 31 August 2024 (Arts 1.4, 2.3, 2.4, 17.1, 17.4, 36.1). Government of India, DEA. dea.gov.in
Agreement between India and the United Kingdom for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed 14 March 1994 (Art 15). Government of India, DEA. dea.gov.in
Income-tax Act 2025 (30 of 2025), s.70(1)(t), (u) and s.70(2), Table item 5. Income Tax Department. incometaxindia.gov.in
CBDT Notification No. 135/2026, S.O. 5611(E), 13 October 2026 (India–Mauritius DTAA Protocol). Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue). incometaxindia.gov.in

India–Mauritius BIT: Treaty Protection Ends March 2027