Law Commission Report
Report No. 247 On Indian Succession Act
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA
Report No. 247
Sections 41 to 48 of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925 - Proposed Reforms
September, 2014
The 20th Law Commission was constituted for a period of three years
from 1st September, 2012 by Order No. A-45012/1/2012-Admn.III (LA)
dated the 8th October, 2012 issued by the Government of India,
Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, New Delhi.
The Law Commission consists of a full time Chairman, four full-time
Members (including Member-Secretary), two Ex-officio Members and
four part-time Members.
Chairman
Hon'ble Justice A.P. Shah
Full-time Members
Justice S.N. Kapoor
Prof. (Dr.) Moolchand Sharma
Justice Usha Mehra
Dr. S.S. Chahar, Member-Secretary
Ex-officio Member
Mr. P.K. Malhotra, Secretary (Department of Legal Affairs)
Dr. Sanjay Singh, Secretary (Legislative Department)
Part-time Members
Shri R. Venkataramani
Prof. (Dr.) Yogesh Tyagi
Dr. Bijai Narain Mani
Prof.(Dr.) Gurjeet Singh
ii
The Law Commission is located in
14th Floor, Hindustan Times House,
K.G. Marg,
New Delhi-110 001
Member Secretary
Dr. S.S. Chahar
Research Staff
Dr. (Smt.) Pawan Sharma : Joint Secretary & Law Officer
Shri A.K. Upadhyay : Additional Law Officer
Dr. V.K. Singh : Deputy Legal Adviser
The text of this Report is available on the Internet at :
http://www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in
© Government of
India
Law Commission of India
iii
iv
At a Glance
Sl.No. Contents Page No.
1.Introduction 1 2. Developments leading to enactment of Indian 2-5 Succession Act, 1925 3. Indian Succession Act, 1925 5-8 4. Scheme of Sections 41-48 - Unfair and unjust to 8 - 10 Christian Mother 5. Suggestions & Recommendations 10 - 14 6. Chart Epicting Changes/Amendments as 15 - 21 Recommended 7. Conclusion 21-22 v REPORT
Sections 41 to 48 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 -Proposed Reforms Introduction Christianity is the third most populous religion in India. Indian Christians, though united in the essence of their faith, are diverse in their practices, rites and religion across the country. Though uniformity among the Roman Catholic Church is more or less maintained, the indigenous influence has made Christianity in India unique and different from its form in many other countries across the World. Almost all varieties of Christianity are believed to reside in India though the most common groups are from the Roman Catholic Church, Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, the Protestant Churches like the Church of South India, the Marthoma Syrian Church, the Presbyterian Church of India and so on. During early period Christianity was considered to be a foreign reception and imposition in Indian context. However, with the passage of time Indian Christianity has become integral part of Indian culture itself and has come to be understood as an indigenous appropriation of Christian experience and not a foreign implant.1 1 Selva J Raj, Corrine Dempsey, POPULAR CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA:
RITING BETWEEN THE LINES, 2002, p. 3.
Therefore, as result of above the family law governing Christians in India is varied. Synergetic influences have led to cultural variations that have gained legal recognition either statutorily or judicially. This has led to multiplicity in application of laws whereas ambiguity most noticeable is in the laws of succession for Christians. It is this multiplicity and ambiguity that led to enactment of the Indian Succession Act, 1865 and finally the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Developments leading to enactment of Indian Succession Act, 1925 Succession laws in India had their origin in religion. Thus we find that in the late 19th century, succession was determined on the basis of customary practices and religious laws. There were, therefore, specific rules within the scheme of religious laws and texts for the devolution of proprietary rights for Hindus and Muslims. While these rules were ambiguous due to conflicting interpretations of religious texts, regional variations in practice, and synergetic influences of cultural commixture, the fact still remained that there were specific criteria on the basis of which devolution and succession could be governed.2
However, considerable uncertainty prevailed in the period before 1865 about the law applicable in case of persons belonging to communities other than Hindus and Muslims. Before 1865, the Hindus and Muslims were governed by their respective personal laws, in matters of inheritance and succession. But the position was obscure in relation to other persons - for example, Anglo-Indians, Parsis, Jews, Armenians, Christians, and others. In general the English law was applied in the Presidency towns, but the position as regards the Moffusil was not very clear. It is this prevalence of obscurity that was in fact, referred to by Sir Henry Maine, while introducing the Bill that led to the Succession Act of 1865. The law defining the rights and obligations of non-Hindus and non-Muslims was thus in extremely confused position. In the Presidency towns, the English Law was applied to members of just mentioned communities. Outside the presidency towns, most of the courts in the Mofussil came to apply under the phrase "Justice, equity and good conscience" in all cases not provided for by the legislature, the substantive personal law of the particular person. The First Law Commission in 1835, thus recommended that the English Law should be declared to be the law applicable to such persons - a recommendation that was not accepted. The 3 Second Law Commission of 1853 did not favour introduction of English Law, but it viewed it desirable to assimilate law as was prevailing throughout the country. However, the Third Law Commission submitted draft of the Indian Succession Act, 1865. Finally, came the Act of 1865. The Act, dealt with succession, both testamentary and intestate. The Act exempted Hindus and Muslims from its scope, but the utility of the Act lay in the codification of law of succession as regards other persons.
The Indian Succession Act, 1865 that was based on English law and was declared to constitute, subject to certain exceptions, the law of British India applicable to all classes of intestate and testamentary succession but the exceptions were so wide as to exclude all natives of India. A very important change was made by the Hindu Wills Act, 1870 (Act 21 of 1870), which inter alia enacted that certain portions of Indian Succession Act should apply to all Wills and codicils made by any Hindu on or after 1st day of September, 1870. The Probate and Administration Act 5 of 1881 was applied to Hindus and Muhammadans. [On the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, succession to property of a Hindu is governed by its provisions except to the extent excluded by Section 5 therein. Clause(1) of Section 5 4 relates to succession to property of Hindus whose marriage is solemnised under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and to the property of the issue of such marriage. Clauses (ii) and (iii) of the Section relate to impartible property held by the persons specified therein. Succession to the properties of all such persons is regulated by the Indian Succession Act, 1925.] The British Parliament felt that in the face of such vast scatteredness and multiplicity as described above there was need for consolidation of law. And thus mainly responding to this need that the British legislatives enacted Indian Succession Act, 1925, - primarily a consolidating Act.
Indian Succession Act, 1925 Today the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is the principal legislative measure in India dealing with the substantive law of testamentary succession in regard to persons other than Muslims and intestate succession in regard to persons other than Hindus and Muslims. It is also the principal legislative measure dealing with machinery of succession in regard to the testamentary and intestate succession in respect of such persons. In fact, it needs to be underscored that the Act of 1925 as already mentioned is a consolidating Act. It is only an amending 5 Act and has only consolidated several pre-existing Central Acts passed between 1841 and 1903 without introducing any material changes. In fact, the framers of the Act stated thus- "The subject of this bill is to consolidate the Indian Law relating to succession; the separate existence on the statute book of a number of large and important enactments renders the present law difficult of ascertainment and there is, therefore, every justification for an attempt to consolidate it. The bill has been prepared by the Statute Law Revision Committee as purely consolidating measure. No intentional change of law has therefore been made."2 The sweep of this Act is wide as it consolidates twelve Acts into one. The Acts consolidated or repealed are:-
i. The Succession (Property Protection) Act, 19 of 1841 ii. The Indian Succession Act, 10 of 1925 iii. The Parsi Intestate Succession Act, 21 of 1865 iv. The Hindu Wills Act, 21 of 1870 v. The Married Women's Property Act, 3 of the 1874, Section 2 vi. Probate and Administration Act, 5 of 1881;
Act 6 of 1889; Act 2 of 1890 and Act 8 of 1903 vii. The District Delegates Act, 6 of 1881 viii. The Succession Certificate Act, 7 of 1889 2 Statement of objects and reasons vide Gazette of India (page 5), dated 4th August, 1923 6 ix. The Native Christian Administration of Estates Act, 7 of 1901 Scheme of the Act - The Succession Act broadly divides succession into intestate and testamentary succession. While the provisions of the Act relating to intestate succession are applicable to particular classes or communities of people leaving the personal law, statutory and otherwise of the two major communities in India, namely Hindus and Muslims, untouched. The provisions of the Act dealing with testamentary succession are generally made applicable to everyone in India except those exempted under the Act and a few others.
The Act has been divided into eleven parts and some of the parts have been sub-divided into chapters. Part-I relates to preliminary dealing with definitions and power of the State Government to exempt certain classes of persons from the operation of the Act. Part-II lays down the law relating to domicile. The concept is of importance, because the application of the Act to movable property of a person depends thereon. However, this part, does not apply if the deceased was a Hindu, Muhammadan, Budhist, Sikh or Jaina. Part-III states the effect of marriage on the rights of succession.7
Part-IV treats of the concept of consanguinity - against a concept of importance for the purposes of intestate succession. Part-V enacts the provisions relating to the intestate succession. It deals with the order of intestate succession. As the present work largely involves issues of intestate succession, Part-V of the Act constitutes the main concern of the work that follows. Part-VI, which is the longest part of the Act and comprises twenty-three chapters and deals with testamentary succession though, may constitute the most important portion of the Act, though not very relevant from the perspective of present study. However, continuing about the general scheme of the Act, Part-VII deals with the protection of the property of the deceased and Part-VIII with representative title to the property of the deceased. Part-IX relates to probate, letter of administration and administration of the assets of the deceased and Part-X regulates the grant of succession certificate.
Scheme of To bring to focus the issue of the present study; Sections 41-48 How Sections 41 to 48 (Sections 42 to 46 to be more
- Unfair and specific) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 are unfair to Unjust to Christian the interest of Christian Women and what changes in Mother this regard could be suggested' a closer look at the provisions of Part V is needed. It is with this part of the Act begins the provisions actually dealing with the order 8 of intestate succession. Part-V does not apply to any intestacy occurring before the 1st January, 1866, or to the property of any Hindu, Mohammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina.
Chapter I (Sections 29 & 30) of this part of the Act is preliminary while Chapter II (Sections 31 to 49) deals with 'Rules in cases of Intestates other than Parsis' and Chapter III (Sections 50-56) contains special rules for Parsis intestates.
It is Chapter II dealing with rules in cases of intestate other than Parsis that forms the primary concern of the present report. Chapter II of part-V of the Act has been divided into three sub-parts. Sections 31 to 35 forming a sub-part provide rules in cases of intestate other than Parsis, while Sections 36 to 40 forming another sub-part deal with 'rules regarding distribution where there are lineal descendants' of the intestate.
Another sub-part of this Chapter of the Act 'running from Sections 41 to 49 provides rules regarding distribution where there 'are no lineal descendants' of the intestate.
It is in context of provisions contained in Sections 41 to 49 it has been contended that these provisions are 9 unfair towards Christian Women. The concern has been raised by many including number of Christian organizations. A number of memorandums and representations expressing their concerns were addressed to the Government and to the Union Law Minister at different times in the past few years. In turn the Ministry of Law & Justice referred these representations to the Law Commission for its suggestions. The Commission thus undertook study on the subject sometime in the year 2012. In this interim and recently one of former Consultants formerly engaged by the Commission, Shri Kanda Rao, Advocate, A.P. High Court circulated a document on the subject with a copy marked to the Commission. The Commission felt that keeping in view the background and importance of the subject it needs to give serious thoughts to the subject and prepare a short report. Thus finally the present report is submitted to Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, for its consideration.
Suggestions & The report has mainly focused around provisions Recommenda- contained in Sections 41 to 49 and examined as to tions whether these provisions are just and fair towards women or these are discriminatory against them? If discriminatory - what reforms could be suggested.
10Section 41 provides that rules of distribution where the intestate has left no lineal descendants shall be contained in Sections 42 to 48, "after deducting the widow's share if he has left a widow." A simple reading of provisions built in Sections 42 to 46 would reveal how the scheme envisioned therein is unfair and unjust. According to Section 42, where deceased intestate father is living and there are no lineal descendants, father succeeds to property and mother gets no share. Preferential approach is writ large.
Further, even in case where the deceased intestate's father does not survive, provisions of Section 43 requires mother to equally share with brothers or sisters of the intestate, rather being entitled to what her husband (i.e. deceased intestate's father) was entitled to many calling such provisions 'unfair'. Unfairness runs through provisions of Sections 44 and 45 as well, and it is only when neither father, brother, sister or their children of the deceased intestate are living that the property goes to the mother under Section 46 - a situation to a great extent created by forces of divine circumstances. The Law Commission in its earlier report (110th) - "Indian Succession Act, 1925" reflecting on these provisions have thus noted: "This is not in conformity with the current thinking as to status of women. The law is in need of 11 reform on this point". With this background in view the Commission believes that the need to reform is not only timely but becomes more glaring when one looks around and finds that in many other jurisdictions the law on the point is more sensitive and egalitarian. Say for example in England law is different. There under provisions of Section 46 of the Administration of Estates Act, 1925 even where brothers and sisters of the intestate are alive, the father and mother take the property. And more relevant in our context is to note that they share equally, and if only one of them survives he or she takes the whole.
Foregoing leads us to conclude that the law envisioned under Sections 41 to 49 deserve change so as to protect interest of Christian women, especially in case of mother of deceased intestate. It is suggested that provisions of Section 42 which weaves an archaic principle of giving superior status to man in access and owning property needs to be revised. One of the recommendations thus made in this report is to amend provisions of Section 42 so as to ensure that deceased intestate (leaving apart the half for the deceased's widow if living) succeed the property in equal. Such change would constitute a positive step in ensuring that the law is fair and just towards Christian women.
12Accordingly this would lead to revisiting provisions of Section 43 so as to ensure that where either of the parents (father or mother) of the deceased intestate is living, he or she as the case may be, shall succeed the property even if deceased's brothers and sisters as envisioned in existing provisions of Section 43 are surviving. (Position in this regard has further been clarified in the chart to follow that epicts both the existing provisions and amended ones). Such change is in conformity with our rejection of the approach in existing provisions not only in Section 43 that does not treat mother of the deceased intestate as having status equal to the father but running all through provisions of Sections 44, 45 and 46 as well. Accordingly, in our approach provisions incorporated in Sections 44, 45 and 46 too have been revisited and revised, as could be seen from the chart given below. Coming to Sections 47 and 48 we reiterate what has earlier been recommended by the Law Commission in its 110th report. As regards Section 47 it was noted there that provisions of this Section does not apply until there is at least one brother or sister alive and same be clarified by adding, after the words "nor mother" as appearing in the text of this Section, the words "but has left a brother or a sister". The position clarifying this has been shown in the chart. Section 48 incorporates distribution per capita approach 13 where there are no brothers or sisters, but only children of brothers and sisters. It has been rightly pointed out that distribution per capita may be satisfactory as a general rule, but even unjust in case of children of brothers and sisters and, therefore, it be amended to provide that the succession should be per stirpes in such cases. The accident of the death of one issue should not affect the share of his or her decedents. The revised position has been epicted in the chart.
14
Chart Epicting THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925
Changes/ CHAPTER - II
Amendments as
Recommended
Existing Sections Proposed Amendments
The Indian Succession Act 1925 The Indian Succession
(Sections 41-49) (Amendment) Act 2014
Section 41 Rules of distribution where intestate has left no lineal descendants- As it is Where an intestate has left no lineal descendants, the rules for the distribution of his property (after deducting the widow's share, if he has left a widow) shall be those contained in Sections 42 to 48.
Section 42 Where intestate's father living- Where intestate's parents If the intestate's father is living, (father and mother) living- he shall succeed to the property. If the intestate's parents (father and mother) are living, they shall succeed the property equally.
Section 43 Where intestate's father dead, Where either of intestate's but his mother, brothers and parents is dead- sisters living- If either of the intestate's If the intestate's father is dead, parents is dead, the other but the intestate's mother is parent shall succeed to the living and there are also brothers property. or sisters of the intestate living, Illustration and there is no child living of any A dies intestate, survived by deceased brother or sister, the either father or mother, the mother and each living brother surviving parent as the case may or sister shall succeed to the be shall take the entire property in equal shares. property.
Illustration 15 A dies intestate, survived by his mother and two brothers of the full blood, John and Henry, and a sister Mary, who is the daughter of his mother but not of his father. The mother takes one-
fourth, each brother takes one-
fourth and Mary, the sister of half blood, takes one-fourth.
Section 44 Where intestate's father dead Where intestate's father and and his mother, a brother or mother are dead and his sister, and children of any brother or sister, and children deceased brother or sister living- of any deceased brother or If the intestate's father is dead sister living- but the intestate's mother is If the intestate's father and living, and if any brother or sister mother are dead but if any of and the child or children of any the intestate's brother or sister brother or sister who may have and the child or children of any died in the intestate's lifetime are brother or sister who may have also living, then the mother and died in the intestate's lifetime each living brother or sister, and are also living, then each living the living child or children of each brother or sister, and the living deceased brother or sister, shall child or children of each be entitled to the property in deceased brother or sister, shall equal shares, such children (if be entitled to the property in more than one) taking in equal equal shares, such children (if shares only the shares which more than one) taking in equal their respective parents would shares only the shares which have taken if living at the their respective parents would intestate's death. have taken if living at the Illustration intestate's death.
A, the intestate, leaves his Illustration mother, his brothers, John and A, the intestate, leaves his Henry, and also one child of a brothers, John and Henry, and deceased sister, Mary, and two also one child of a deceased children of George, a deceased sister, Mary, and two children of brother of the half blood who George, a deceased brother of was the son of his father but not the half blood who was the son 16 of his mother. The mother takes of his father but not of his one-fifth, John and Henry each mother. John and Henry each takes one-fifth, the child of Mary takes one-fourth, the child of takes one-fifth, and the two Mary takes one-fourth, and the children of George divide the two children of George divide remaining one-fifth equally the remaining one-fourth between them. equally between them.
Section 45 Where intestate's father dead Where intestate's father and and his mother and children of mother are dead and the any deceased brother or sister children of any deceased living- brother or sister living- If the intestate's father is dead, If the intestate's father and but the intestate's mother is mother are dead, and the living, and the brothers and brothers and sisters are all dead,
sisters are all dead, but all or any but all or any of them have left of them have left children who children who survived the survived the intestate, the intestate, the child or children of mother and the child or children each deceased brother or of each deceased brother or sister shall be entitled to the sister shall be entitled to the property in equal shares, such property in equal shares, such children (if more than one) children (if more than one) taking taking in equal shares only in equal shares only the shares the shares which their which their respective parents respective parents would have would have taken if living at the taken if living at the intestate's intestate's death. death.
Illustration Illustration
A, the intestate, leaves no A, the intestate, leaves no
brother or sister but leaves his brother or sister but one child of
mother and one child of deceased sister, Mary and two
deceased sister, Mary and two children of deceased brother
children of deceased brother George. The child of Mary takes
George. The mother takes one- one-half, and the two children
third, the child of Mary takes of George divide the remaining
one-third, and the children of one-half equally between them.
George divide the remaining one-
third equally between them.
17
Section 46 Where intestate's father dead, May be omitted (as
but his mother living and no consequence of changed
brother, sister, nephew or niece- provisions of amended Section
If the intestate's father is dead, 43)
but the intestate's mother is
living, and there is neither
brother, nor sister, nor child of
any brother or sister of the
intestate, the property shall
belong to the mother.
Section 47 Where intestate has left neither Where the intestate has left
lineal descendant, nor father, neither lineal descendant, nor
nor mother- father, nor mother, but has left
Where the intestate has left a brother or a sister, the
neither lineal descendant, nor property shall be divided equally
father, nor mother, the property between his brothers and sisters
shall be divided equally between and the child or children of such
his brothers and sisters and the of them as may have died
child or children of such of them before them, such children (if
as may have died before him, more than one) taking in equal
such children (if more than one) shares only the shares which
taking in equal shares only the their respective parents would
shares which their respective have taken if living at the
parents would have taken if living intestate's death. at the intestate's death.
Section 48 Where intestate has left neither Where the intestate has left lineal descendant, nor parent, neither lineal descendant nor nor brother, nor sister- parents, nor brother, nor sister, Where the intestate has left his property shall be divided neither lineal descendant, nor equally among those of his parent, nor brother, nor sister, relatives who are in the nearest his property shall be divided degree of kindred to him. equally among those of his relatives who are in the nearest Explanation - Where such degree of kindred to him. relatives are children of brothers Illustrations or sisters of the intestate, they shall take stirpes.
(i) A, the intestate, has left a Illustrations grandfather, and a 18 grandmother and no other (i) A, the intestate, has left a relative standing in the same grandfather, and a or a nearer degree of grandmother and no other kindred to him. They, being relative standing in the in the second degree, will be same or a nearer degree of entitled to the property in kindred to him. They, being equal shares, exclusive of in the second degree, will any uncle or aunt of the be entitled to the property intestate, uncles and aunts in equal shares, exclusive being only in the third of any uncle or aunt of the degree. intestate, uncles and aunts being only in the third degree.
(ii) A, the intestate, has left a great-grandfather, or a great-grandmother, and uncles and aunts, and no other relative standing in the (ii) A, the intestate, has left a same or a nearer degree of great-grandfather, or a kindred to him. All of these great-grandmother, and being in the third degree will uncles and aunts, and no take equal shares. other relative standing in the same or a nearer
(iii) A, the intestate, left a great- degree of kindred to him.
grandfather, an uncle and a All of these being in the nephew, but no relative third degree will take equal standing in a nearer degree shares.
of kindred to him. All of
these being in the third
degree will take equal
shares. (iii) A, the intestate, left a
great-grandfather, an
(iv) Ten children of one brother uncle and a nephew, but
or sister of the intestate and no relative standing in a
one child of another brother nearer degree of kindred
or sister of the intestate, to him. All of these being in
constitute the class of the third degree will take
relatives of the nearest equal shares.
degree of kindred to him.
They will each take one-
eleventh of the property. (iv) Two children of one
brother or sister of the
intestate and one child of
another brother or sister
of the intestate,
19
constitute the class of
relatives of the nearest
degree of hindered to
him. Half of the property
shall be shared by two
children in equal shares
and the remaining half
shall go to one child of
another brother or sister.
To be more specific two
children of one brother or
sister of the intestate shall
take one-fourth each
while one child of another
brother or sister of the
intestate shall take half of
the property.
(No doubt it may sound at little
at unease, but the accident of
the death of one issue should
not affect the share of his or
her descendants. Even in
Section 47 where there are
brothers or sisters and also
children of brother and sisters
the succession is per stirpes.
There appears to be no
justification for having a
different rule under Section 48,
at least where the persons
entitled are children of brother
and sisters).
Section 49 Children's advancements not brought into hotchpot-
Where a distributive share in the As it is property of a person who has died intestate is claimed by a child, or any descendant of a child, of such person, no money or other property which the intestate may, during his life, have paid, given or settled to, or for the advancement of, the child by whom or by whose descendant the claim is made shall be taken into account in 20 estimating such distributive share.
The Commission believes above suggested changes if meet legislative approval would go a long way in bringing law in consonance with time and in addressing concerns of Christian community and those aired in various representations and memorandums made to the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India and referred to it.
Conclusion Institutions of 'succession', no doubt is primarily connected with property, but it equally serves 'a variety' of values cherished by a free society. These include reinforcement of family ties and responsibilities economic and social pluralism. As pointed out by the Commission in its earlier report (110th) that at more fundamental level the institution of succession is a proper response of the society to elemental motives ranging from concerns for one's immediate family to a desire to extend one's personality far beyond death and established patterns of inheritance may be the least objectionable means of deciding the ownership of property on a person's death. However, it be not overlooked that transfer of substantial wealth tend to conflict with basic social values, including equality of 21 opportunity, dispersal of economic power and avoidance of rigid class distinctions. Tested on the last parameter as just identified the existing provisions in Sections 42 to 46 of Indian Succession Act are archaic in nature and foster an approach that solidify distinctions based on gender and thus prejudicial and unfair to status of women and Christian mother of deceased intestate in present context. Changes suggested would make law more reflective of rising social awareness in Christian community and of needs of changing times.
(Justice A.P. Shah)
Chairman
(Justice S.N. Kapoor) (Prof. (Dr.) Moolchand Sharma) (Justice Usha Mehra)
Member Member Member
(Dr. S.S. Chahar) (P.K. Malhotra) (Dr.Sanjay Singh)
Member-Secretary Ex-officio Member Ex-officio Member
22