The Supreme Court of India stopped cases in other courts. Now, the Supreme Court will decide if the 2026 Transgender Law is fair.

印度最高法院已停止其他法院的案件。現在，最高法院將決定 2026 年跨性別法是否公平。

The government wanted one court to decide the law. They did not want different courts to give different answers. The Supreme Court agreed to handle all the cases.

政府希望由單一法院決定該法律。他們不希望不同法院給出不同的答案。最高法院同意處理所有案件。

Some people are unhappy with the new law. Before, people could choose their own gender. Now, the law says people must fit into small groups or have a doctor's note. This makes people feel they have less freedom.

有些人對新法感到不滿。以前，人們可以自行選擇性別。現在，法律規定人們必須符合特定的小組分類或持有醫生證明。這讓人們覺得自由減少了。

The law also has new punishments. Some people can go to prison for a long time. The government says this is to stop people from forcing others to change. But others say the law is too strict.

該法還增加了新的處罰。有些人可能會被判處長期監禁。政府表示這是為了防止他人強迫他人改變。但其他人則認為該法律過於嚴格。

The Supreme Court stopped the other courts. They will meet again in July to talk about the law.

最高法院停止了其他法院的審理。他們將於七月再次開庭討論該法律。

The Supreme Court of India has paused cases in several high courts to bring together all legal challenges against the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.

印度最高法院已暫停數個高等法院的案件，旨在將所有針對《跨性別人士（權利保護）修正案 2026》的法律挑戰集中處理。

The court took this action after the Union government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued that having separate cases in the Rajasthan, Delhi, Karnataka, and Kerala high courts could lead to different and conflicting legal decisions. Consequently, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana stopped these proceedings to ensure that the law is applied consistently across the country. This move comes as the Supreme Court is already reviewing similar petitions filed by activists and community leaders.

法院採取此行動是因為聯邦政府（由總律師 Tushar Mehta 代表）主張，如果在拉賈斯坦邦、德里、卡納塔卡邦和喀拉拉邦的高等法院分開審理，可能會導致不同且矛盾的法律裁決。因此，由首席法官 Surya Kant 和法官 V Mohana 領導的法庭暫停了這些程序，以確保法律在全國範圍內一致適用。此舉正值最高法院已在審查由社會活動家和社區領袖提交的類似請願書之際。

The main legal argument focuses on the loss of the right to 'self-identification,' which was established in a famous 2014 court ruling (NALSA v. Union of India). Petitioners emphasize that the 2026 Amendment replaces a broad definition of transgender identity with a much stricter system. This new law only recognizes specific social categories or medical conditions. As a result, critics argue that the law brings back 'medical gatekeeping' and violates constitutional rights to dignity and personal freedom.

主要的法律爭論焦點在於失去「自我認同」的權利，該權利是在 2014 年一項著名的法院裁決（NALSA 訴印度聯邦政府）中確立的。請願人強調，2026 年的修正案將原本寬泛的跨性別身份定義，替換為一個嚴格得多的系統。這項新法僅認可特定的社會類別或醫療狀況。因此，批評者認為該法恢復了「醫療把關」，並違反了憲法賦予的尊嚴與個人自由權利。

Furthermore, the court is examining new and strict punishments introduced in the Act. While the law still protects people from abuse, it now allows for penalties up to life imprisonment for forcing someone into a transgender presentation. Petitioners assert that these rules unfairly criminalize transgender identities. However, the Union government maintains that the law is meant to stop forced procedures rather than block voluntary medical treatments. The court noted that it must balance the right to self-identification with the need to prevent people from wrongly claiming government benefits.

此外，法院正在審查該法案引入的新且嚴厲的懲罰。雖然法律仍保護人士免受虐待，但現在若強迫他人採取跨性別呈現方式，最高可處以終身監禁。請願人主張，這些規定不公平地將跨性別身份刑事化。然而，聯邦政府堅持認為，法律旨在阻止強迫手術，而非阻礙自願的醫療處理。法院指出，必須在自我認同權與防止他人錯誤申領政府福利的需求之間取得平衡。

The Supreme Court has stopped the high court cases and scheduled new hearings for July to decide if the 2026 Amendment is constitutional.

最高法院已暫停高等法院的案件，並安排在 7 月進行新聆訊，以決定 2026 年修正案是否符合憲法。

The Supreme Court of India has suspended proceedings in several high courts to consolidate challenges against the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.

印度最高法院已暫停數個高等法院的程序，以合併處理針對《2026年跨性別人士（權利保護）修正案》違憲性的挑戰。

The judicial intervention commenced following a petition by the Union government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, which posited that concurrent litigation across the Rajasthan, Delhi, Karnataka, and Kerala high courts could precipitate divergent judicial pronouncements. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana issued a stay on these proceedings, indicating a preference for the centralization of the matter to ensure legal uniformity. This procedural shift occurs as the apex court is already seized of similar petitions filed by community leaders and activists.

此次司法介入始於聯邦政府（由總檢察官 Tushar Mehta 代表）提出的一項請願，認為在 Rajasthan、Delhi、Karnataka 和 Kerala 高等法院進行的併行訴訟可能會導致分歧的司法裁決。由首席大法官 Surya Kant 和法官 V Mohana 組成的合議庭對這些程序發出暫停令，表明傾向將案件集中處理以確保法律統一。此次程序轉移發生在最高法院已在受理由社群領袖和活動人士提交的類似請願之際。

The core of the legal dispute concerns the perceived erosion of the principle of self-identification, a precedent established in the 2014 National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India judgment. Petitioners contend that the 2026 Amendment, which received presidential assent on March 30, replaces a broad definition of transgender identity with a restrictive framework. This new regime limits recognition to specific socio-cultural categories—such as hijra, kinner, aravani, jogta, and eunuch—or medically diagnosable congenital variations. Consequently, it is argued that the legislation reinstates 'medical gatekeeping' and violates constitutional guarantees of dignity and autonomy under Articles 14, 19, and 21.

法律爭議的核心在於被認為侵蝕了「自我認同」原則，該原則是 2014 年「國家法律服務局 (NALSA) 訴印度聯邦政府」判決所確立的先例。請願者主張，於 3 月 30 日獲得總統批准的 2026 年修正案，將原先寬泛的跨性別身份定義替換為一個限制性的框架。新制度將認可限制在特定的社會文化類別（如 hijra, kinner, aravani, jogta 和太監）或醫療可診斷的先天變異。因此，有人認為該立法恢復了「醫療把關」，且違反了憲法第 14、19 和 21 條關於尊嚴與自主權的保障。

Furthermore, the litigation addresses the introduction of stringent penal provisions. While protections against abuse remain, the amended Act prescribes penalties up to life imprisonment for the coercive induction of individuals into transgender presentation. Petitioners assert that such provisions impermissibly criminalize transgender presentation. Conversely, the Union government maintains that the legislation is designed to regulate forced procedures rather than prohibit voluntary gender-affirming treatments. The judiciary has noted the necessity of balancing individual self-identification with the prevention of benefit misappropriation, while acknowledging Parliament's competence to modify the legal basis of prior judicial rulings within constitutional limits.

此外，訴訟涉及嚴厲刑事條款的引入。儘管針對虐待的保護依然存在，但修正後的法案規定，強迫他人採取跨性別表現者，最高可處以終身監禁。請願者聲稱，此類條款是不合理地將跨性別表現刑事化。相反，聯邦政府堅稱，該立法旨在監管強迫性程序，而非禁止自願的性別肯定治療。司法機關指出，有必要在個人自我認同與防止濫用福利之間取得平衡，同時承認議會在憲法限制內有權修改先前司法裁決的法律基礎。

The Supreme Court has stayed high court proceedings and scheduled further hearings for July to determine the constitutional viability of the 2026 Amendment.

最高法院已暫停高等法院的程序，並將進一步聆訊安排在 7 月，以判定 2026 年修正案的憲法可行性。