New Delhi [India], September 9 : The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has sparked a political firestorm after omitting Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) anti-terror charges from its latest chargesheet against American national Matthew Aaron VanDyke and six Ukrainian nationals. 
Filed in a Delhi court just as the mandatory 180-day judicial custody window was set to expire, the primary chargesheet instead focuses on provisions under the Immigration and Foreigners Act (IFA).
While the defence terms the move a blow to the agency’s credibility and Opposition leaders accuse the government of caving to foreign pressure, official sources maintain that the larger terror investigation remains fully active.
The NIA filed the chargesheet before the Rouse Avenue court on Tuesday under Sections 21 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act (IFA), after the case was initially registered in March under Section 18 of the UAPA, relating to terror conspiracy, along with relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Sources said the omission of UAPA provisions from the present chargesheet should not be interpreted as closure or withdrawal of the terror investigation.
“NIA has not dropped the terror investigation against any of the seven accused. Investigation into offences under the UAPA is continuing against all of them,” sources said.
According to the sources, the agency filed the chargesheet under the Immigration and Foreigners Act because those offences had already been fully established during the investigation.
Under the UAPA framework, an investigating agency can have up to 180 days to complete its investigation while an accused remains in custody, subject to the statutory process. If the requisite chargesheet is not filed within the applicable period, an accused can seek statutory bail.
In VanDyke's case, the 180-day period of judicial custody was ending on September 8. Sources said the offences under the Immigration and Foreigners Act had already been established by that stage, prompting the NIA to file a chargesheet for those offences rather than allow the statutory period to expire.
The sources stressed that this should not be confused with the closure of the larger investigation.
The chargesheet itself records that further investigation under the UAPA is continuing, and the law permits further investigation after filing of a chargesheet as well as a supplementary chargesheet if additional evidence establishes further offences.
The NIA's Special Public Prosecutor also told the court that the investigation was still ongoing and that a supplementary chargesheet could be filed if an offence under the UAPA is ultimately made out.
Special NIA Judge Prashant Sharma has listed the matter for formal consideration on October 1.
The seven accused -- VanDyke and Ukrainian nationals Hurba Petro, Slyviak Taras, Ivan Sukmanovskyi, Stefankiv Marian, Honcharuk Maksim and Kaminskyi Viktor -- were arrested in March in connection with allegations of supporting and training ethnic armed groups in Myanmar that were allegedly inimical to India's national security.
The NIA had alleged that the accused entered India on tourist visas, travelled through restricted areas without the requisite permits and crossed into Myanmar through unauthorised points, where they were allegedly involved in training ethnic armed groups in drone warfare and other forms of warfare.
VanDyke, a self-described combat specialist and founder of security firm Sons of Liberty International (SOLI), was arrested at Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport on March 13. He was subsequently remanded to 11 days of NIA custody on March 17 and remained in custody for around 180 days.
VanDyke's counsel, Advocate Rohit Dandriyal, however, said the latest chargesheet raised questions over the agency's handling of the case.
“First of all, I would like to tell you this thing that the NIA booked Matthew. They are alleging this thing that Matthew Aron Van Dyke, our client, was booked under the UAPA Act. But now, after 180 days, NIA found this thing that he is not accused under the UAPA Act. He is accused under the Foreigners Act Sections 21 and 23 only,” Dandriyal said.
“So, this raises a finger at NIA's working style, how they are working,” he added.
Dandriyal said Sections 21 and 23 of the Foreigners Act relate to violations such as overstaying or visiting restricted areas and described the offences as compoundable.
He also questioned how a person could be kept in custody for 180 days under a terror investigation before the agency filed a chargesheet under the Foreigners Act.
“It is absolutely true that the way they work raises a question. How do you arrest any person in NIA? And after arresting him, you keep him in jail for 180 days. And after keeping him in jail for 180 days, they say that we are not filing a charge sheet in NIA. We are not filing a charge sheet in UAPA. But it requires the Foreigner's Act,” the counsel said.
He said the latest development had cleared the way for VanDyke to seek release, adding that the necessary formalities would be completed within “2-3 days”.
The political controversy intensified after Opposition leaders questioned why the stringent anti-terror law was not included in the chargesheet.
Congress MP and senior Supreme Court advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said the Centre owed the country an explanation if the terror charges were dropped following high-level India-US meetings.
“If reports are true that terror charges against U.S. citizen Matthew Van Dyke have been dropped after high-level U.S.-India meetings, the Modi Government owes India an explanation,” Singhvi said in a post on X.
“If an individual was arrested on allegations involving illegal entry, links with armed groups and drone warfare training, how did those serious allegations suddenly disappear?” he asked.
Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh also questioned whether the NIA had taken the decision after a proper investigation or was “pressurised” by the PM Modi government at the instance of US authorities.
“Did NIA drop the terror charges against the US national Matthew VanDyke after a proper investigation or was it pressurised to do so right away by the Modi Govt at the instance of the US authorities? What is pro quo that India expects for this quid? This appears to be bullying,” Ramesh said in a post on X.
AIMIM chief and Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi described the government as “weak” and alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had “succumbed to American pressure”.
“Such a weak govt. Why has PM Narendra Modi succumbed to American pressure and dropped anti-terror UAPA charges in this case?” Owaisi said.
“The FIR still mentions UAPA, but in order to facilitate a smooth exit, no UAPA charges have been filed. Only charges under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 remain,” he added.
Owaisi further alleged that foreign governments could pressure the government into dropping terror charges while people facing what he termed “patently false charges” remained in jail for years.
“Apparently, a foreign govt can pressurise Modi into dropping terror charges. But thousands of people face patently false charges and remain in jail for years,” he said.
“This is the sign of a ‘dimaghi Savarkar’ - servile abroad and haughty at home,” Owaisi added.
Congress leader Pawan Khera also questioned the development, describing the prospect of a “clean chit” for VanDyke as “deeply troubling”.
Khera referred to the NIA's allegations at the time of VanDyke's arrest, including that the group entered India on tourist visas, travelled through restricted border areas without the required permits and illegally crossed into Myanmar through Mizoram, where they allegedly trained ethnic armed groups in drone warfare.
“If these allegations had a genuine basis, then: Why is the NIA now dropping the UAPA charges?” Khera asked in a post on X.
He also questioned whether the government was “softening its stance because VanDyke is an American citizen” amid alleged pressure from the United States, and whether the development had implications for India's relationship with Myanmar.
Khera also raised a third possibility, asking whether the NIA had failed to gather sufficient evidence to substantiate the serious allegations made at the time of arrest.
"Is the NIA so lost and incompetent that there never was any basis to the serious allegations it made, and it never had sufficient evidence?" he wrote on X.
Meanwhile, sources also clarified that US diplomats raising the case of an American citizen detained in India was normal diplomatic practice and did not by itself indicate any improper intervention.
India's own Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) pointed out that India's own missions approach foreign governments and authorities whenever an Indian citizen is arrested overseas for consular access, legal assistance, fair treatment and, where appropriate, speedy trial or other relief.
Consular access to detained nationals is also recognised under the Vienna Convention.
The case also drew attention after an X account purportedly operated by VanDyke's family appealed to the US government on September 2 for his release from Tihar jail, claiming he was innocent and alleging that he was being denied basic detainee rights and kept in solitary confinement.
“The family of @Matt_VanDyke seeks urgent U.S. diplomatic intervention as he is presently still denied basic detainee rights, and is being kept in solitary confinement at Tihar Jail 8/9 in Delhi, India. Matthew is innocent of all charges against him,” the account said.
The family described VanDyke as someone who had documented human suffering and provided humanitarian assistance to people affected by conflict and crisis.
For now, the key distinction in the case is between the chargesheet filed by the NIA and the wider investigation. While the present chargesheet contains offences under the Immigration and Foreigners Act and does not invoke UAPA provisions, the agency has maintained that its investigation into the alleged terror offences remains open and that a supplementary chargesheet can be filed if further evidence establishes offences under the anti-terror law.