Now, the substantive portion of the law means that it governs the following provisions of the article. That means that clause (1) which is the substantive portion of this article should govern the other provisions of this article, i.e. clauses (2) and (3). But here we find that the position is quite otherwise. It is topsy-turvy. Actually clause (3) governs the substantive portion of this article which in my opinion, is not legal, because clause (1) says that this body will function as the Dominion Parliament, whereas clause (3) dissolves this Constituent Assembly, not wholly but partly. In fact, clause (3) means the dissolution of this body in parts. Therefore I think clause (3) is redundant and should not be included or inserted in this article.
