'Kya Law ka Fundamental Dichotomy hai?'

I disagree with the common claim that jurisprudence law is inherently divided into 'substantive' and 'adjective' branches. Logically, this dichotomy doesn't hold water. Adjective law isn't just about procedure, it's also about the rules governing the making and interpretation of substantive law. Take the example of the 'Supervening Illegality' rule in Indian Contract Acts - it's a substantive law principle, but its application is governed by adjective law provisions. How can we separate the two when a law is substantive in nature, yet its scope and application depend on adjective law? I think the dichotomy is an oversimplification and doesn't accurately reflect the complexities of our legal system.