Judicial decisions, derive their binding nature not merely from their pronouncement but from the principles of law that they decisively establish. This article explores the interplay as well as differences between Articles 141 and 142 of the Indian Constitution, particularly through the lens of the Union of India v. Ashish Aggarwal and Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal cases. Article 141 ensures consistency by mandating adherence to the ratio decidendi of Supreme Court judgments, while Article 142 allows equitable relief to render complete justice, tailored to the peculiar circumstances. The Supreme Court has, however, blurred these distinctions, raising questions about the scope of Article 142 and its compatibility with Article 141.