Explain in very very simple English but concisely: Madras High Court vacates the interim injunction granted against NAME_1 in the plaint filed by NAME_2 that NAME_1 should not speak against him. 

Vacating the stay, the court says that, “It is true that the right to freedom of speech as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) cannot be usurped to damage the reputation of an individual. Reputation of an individual had been traced to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The balancing of the rights available under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21. But, however, considering the fact that the applicant herein admittedly is a public person. The Youtube videos & tweets tabulated supra only make various allegations as against the applicant in performance of his official duties. Further most of the statements are already available in public domain. In view of the been also followed by a Division Bench of this Court in R.NAME_3's case      Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2016 (17) SCC 221 had dealt with judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (1994) 6 SCC 632 which has in (2006) 2 LW 377. I am of the considered view that there cannot be any injunction as prayed for against the respondent.” 

In a separate contempt petition filed by NAME_2, the Court had slapped a fine of Rs.1 lakh payable to legal services authority and also to file an undertaking that he will obey the orders of all courts. The response should be in all capital letters.
user