The authority to impose constraints may come from external controls such as the government through laws, religious authorities, or institutions. However, the important question is to identify which constraints are necessary and justifiable. In a democratic government, people retain some control over their rulers, making it an important means of protecting the freedom of people rather than arbitrarily imposing restrictions.

Religious leaders should not have unchecked authority to issue decrees on dress. The context shows that a fatwa was issued against Sania Mirza for her dress style by a cleric. Such impositions can amount to bullying or harassing people to conform to others' wishes. When faced with such coercion, individuals need stronger support from law to ensure their freedom is protected. Constraints by force should only happen when actions cause serious harm to definite individuals.

The state can decide on dress in certain contexts, but such decisions must be questioned. For instance, in Maoist China, all people had to wear 'Mao suits' in the name of equality, which compromised human dignity. The context asks whether such imposition makes society 'equal' or merely diminishes the many ways people have of expressing themselves. Democratic governments must ensure that constraints do not become excessive or unjustifiable.

The ICC can set down rules for cricket as these are context-specific restrictions. The context mentions that test match rules require cricketers to wear white dress. The relevant question is whether the game would be affected if cricketers wore coloured clothes. Such rules in sports are generally considered reasonable as they serve a specific purpose within that activity, unlike blanket impositions on personal freedom in daily life.