Arvind Jain, a 34-year-old city resident, stated that he had enrolled into the KBA by paying Rs 75,000 membership fee but was facing difficulties to use its services because of the `illegal’  dress code.
He claimed that the KBA was insisting on white shorts, white T-shirt, shoes and socks for playing. Members were not allowed to wear dignified dress of their choice and a dress code copied from foreign sportspersons was being imposed UPON, much against the Indian clothing culture, he said. Appearing in person before the Court, Arvind contended that his fundamental right to wear a dignified dress of his choice was being curtailed by the KBA. He also alleged that KBA had no valid explanation for such compulsion and was not providing a copy of rules. Justice Ajit J Gunjal rejected the petition observing that there was no violation of any fundamental right, in prescribing a dress code. The judge refused to interfere saying that it was an internal matter of the association. ``If the petitioner does not want to wear the dress prescribed by the association, he can as well not play. However, anybody is not compelling him to play,’’ the judge observed.
Clarification sought
The High Court on Monday directed the Commercial Street police inspector to file a clear  statement answering the allegation, that a man was illegally detained at the police station for 12 days.
The direction followed a habeas corpus petition filed by M Isak alleging illegal detention of his brother Omar Farooq by the police. The petitioner had alleged that the cops had taken Omar into custody on August 21 and had detained him without producing before a magistrate. Prosecution had stated that Omar was taken to custody by Hennur police on September 3 and was subsequently remanded to judicial custody. But on September 10, Omar, released on bail, told the Court that he was illegally detained at the police station since August 21 and was later taken to Hennur station. He was then produced before the magistrate, as if arrested on that day. The State Public Prosecutor (SPP) had filed an affidavit of police inspector B S Mohan Kumar, denying this allegation as false. But, during the hearing on Monday, SPP S Dore Raju made a statement that the police had summoned Omar to police station on August 21 for interrogation and had sent him back on the same day.
Following this contradictory statement about which the inspector’s affidavit was silent, the bench directed SPP to file a better affidavit of the inspector, with clear details.