Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. 1. The petition is misconceived. The fact that a Full Bench of this Court on 28.9.1994 in Writ Petitions No. 4202 and 4203 of 1987 * held that the Resolutions of 28.3.1987 and 4.4.1987 of the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly which held the petitioner to be guilty of contempt of the House for having published a cartoon in the issue of 29.3.1987 of the Tamil Weekly Ananda Vikatan and released on 27.3.1987, in which Members of Legislative Assembly and Ministers were described as pickpockets and masked dacoits, and which resulted in the imprisonment of the petitioner from 4.4.1987 to 6.4.1987, as unconstitutional and void, does not ipso facto result in an obligation being cast on the Assembly to expunge the resolutions from the record of the House. The declaration so made does not have the effect of over-riding Rule 283 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules framed under Article 208 of the Constitution, which Rule, inter alia, provides as under: “283(1). The Speaker may authorise the printing, publication, distribution or sale of any paper, document or report in connection with the business of the House or any paper, document, or report laid on the table of the House or presented to the House or a Committee thereof. Provided that the proceedings of the House approved and published under the order of the Speaker shall not be modified or removed either by the same Speaker or by any of the Speakers succeeding him or by the House or any new matter included or annexed to such proceedings, for any reason whatsoever. (2) A paper, document or report printed, published, distributed or sold in pursuance of sub-rule (1) shall be deemed to have been printed, published distributed or sold under the authority of the House within the meaning of clause (2) of Article 194 of the Constitution.” 2. A perusal of that Rule shows that the proceedings of the House shall be printed, published and distributed under the authority of the House. The record containing the Resolution, by which the petitioner is aggrieved, has obviously been printed, published and distributed, and that event book place long ago. 3. A perusal of that Rule shows that the proceedings of the House shall be printed, published and distributed under the authority of the House. The record containing the Resolution, by which the petitioner is aggrieved, has obviously been printed, published and distributed, and that event book place long ago. 3. The petitioners challenge to the Resolutions by which the petitioner was penalised for breach of privilege of the House, was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Writ Petitions No. 4202 and 4203 of 1987. In the judgment rendered on 28th September, 1994, the Court held: “There had been gross violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner secured under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution in imposing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months, and on this ground alone, the condemnation of the petitioner, as also the punishment imposed are deemed to be unconstitutional and null and void.” The Court further held, “Having regard to the above, we consider it sufficient to award Rs. 1,000/- as a notional or token compensation by way of ‘monetary’ amends’ to the breach of the fundamental rights of the petitioner in vindication of his stand. Respondents 1 and 3 shall ensure the payment to the petitioner.” 5. That judgment was accepted by the respondents and the compensation awarded was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner did not seek expunging of the resolutions when the matter was considered by the Full Bench, nor did the Full Bench consider it in the circumstances necessary to give any such direction. 6. The power of the House to maintain and publish the record of its proceedings is derived from the Constitution which permits the House to make rules for regulating, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, its procedure, and the conduct of its business. As to whether the House had the power to indict the petitioner and deprive him of the fundamental right in the manner that it did, was a question which was open to the petitioner to agitate, and which he did agitate successfully. The reliefs to which he was entitled have already been granted. The cause of action for the earlier petitions as also this petition is the same, and the omission to claim further relief in that petition cannot be got over by filing a fresh petition. 7. The reliefs to which he was entitled have already been granted. The cause of action for the earlier petitions as also this petition is the same, and the omission to claim further relief in that petition cannot be got over by filing a fresh petition. 7. Moreover, when the Court holds a resolution or enactment passed by the legislature to be void, the Court only pronounces on the validity of the same. The Court does not direct the alteration or amendment of the record of the proceedings of the Legislature. 8. The Acts passed by Parliament or State Legislature, when they are found to be unconstitutional, are struck down by the Courts rendering the same unenforceable. Even amendments passed by Parliament to the Constitution have been declared by the Courts to be beyond the limits of the amending power of the Parliament. Such declarations by the Court are not accompanied by directions to Parliament or legislature to expunge any part of their record of proceedings. Even where the action taken by the House of Parliament, or legislature is in excess of what is permitted under the Constitution, the record of the proceeding remains unaltered. 9. While the record of the House will continue to remain as it is, the judgment of the Court will continue to be binding and the two have to be read together. Expunging of remarks in judgments of Courts, or in the confidential records of officials, sometimes directed by the Courts, cannot be extended to expunging resolutions passed by the Legislature of a State from the record of its proceedings, except in respect of the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court in the discharge of his duties, in view of the restriction on discussion of such conduct imposed by Article 211 of the Constitution. 10. The writ petition is dismissed.