The National Investigation Agency has filed a chargesheet against US national Matthew Aaron VanDyke and six Ukrainian citizens under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, but has not invoked the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the filing.
The chargesheet was submitted on September 8 before Special Judge Prashant Sharma at Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Courts. It follows the arrest of the seven foreign nationals in March over allegations involving unauthorised movement through India’s Mizoram border and suspected links to armed groups in Myanmar.
The NIA has made clear that its investigation into the terrorism-related allegations remains open. The absence of UAPA charges in the present filing is therefore a significant legal development, but not a final conclusion that the broader allegations have been disproved.
Proposal for Conducting Cyber Crisis Drill, Tabletop Exercise (TTEx) & CCMP Readiness Exercise
Who Are the Seven Foreign Nationals?
The accused include Matthew Aaron VanDyke, a US citizen known for his involvement in overseas conflicts, and six Ukrainian nationals.
The Ukrainians have been identified as Viktor Kaminskyi, Petro Hurba, Taras Slyviak, Ivan Sukmanovskyi, Marian Stefankiv and Maksim Honcharuk.
VanDyke was arrested at Kolkata airport on March 13, 2026. The Ukrainian nationals were intercepted at airports in Delhi and Lucknow on the same day.
According to the NIA, the group had travelled through India to Myanmar and later returned through the Mizoram border before being intercepted.
VanDyke is the founder of Sons of Liberty International, an organisation associated with military training and support for groups involved in overseas conflicts. His past activities have included participation in the Libyan civil war.
Those previous activities do not, by themselves, establish wrongdoing in the present Indian case.
Valid Visas, but Alleged Protected-Area Violations
The NIA’s account states that the seven entered India on valid travel documents in December 2025.
The alleged violations arose later, when they travelled to Guwahati and Mizoram without the mandatory Protected Area Permit or Restricted Area Permit and then crossed the India-Myanmar border through unauthorised points.
The agency says the group returned to India from Myanmar around March 5, 2026.
The chargesheet invokes Sections 21 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025. These provisions address violations involving entry, movement and stay, including breaches of visa or permit conditions.
The distinction is important. The prosecution is not merely alleging that the foreign nationals arrived in India without valid passports or visas. It is alleging that they violated restrictions governing where they could travel and how they could cross the international border.
What Is a Protected Area Permit?
A Protected Area Permit, commonly called a PAP, is a special permission required for foreign nationals to visit certain areas of India that are subject to additional security restrictions.
Some regions near international borders have special entry rules because of their strategic location, security concerns or sensitive local conditions.
A valid Indian visa does not automatically authorise a foreign visitor to enter every restricted area. Separate permission may be required, depending on the location, nationality and applicable rules.
The NIA alleges that the accused travelled into such an area without the necessary permission and crossed into Myanmar through an unauthorised route.
The court will have to examine the relevant permit requirements, travel documents and evidence of the alleged crossings.
NIA Alleges Drone Training Mission in Myanmar
The investigation has also examined allegations that the group travelled to Myanmar to provide training to ethnic armed groups.
According to the NIA, the accused reached Victoria Camp after crossing the border and were allegedly scheduled to conduct training involving drone warfare, drone operations, assembly and jamming technology.
The agency has claimed that some of the Myanmar-based groups had links with insurgent organisations operating in India’s northeastern states.
These allegations formed part of the wider investigation into a possible terror conspiracy. However, the present chargesheet does not include UAPA offences.
The distinction between an allegation in an investigation and an offence formally charged is essential. The court has not established that the seven provided training to anti-India groups or participated in a terrorist conspiracy.
Why Has the NIA Not Invoked UAPA?
The original case included Section 18 of the UAPA, which concerns conspiracy, attempts and related conduct connected with terrorist acts.
In the September 8 chargesheet, the agency instead proceeded under the Immigration and Foreigners Act.
Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi told the court that more time was required to ascertain and verify the complete facts relating to possible UAPA offences.
He also confirmed that the investigation remains open in other aspects, including the anti-terror allegations. The agency may seek to file a supplementary chargesheet if further evidence supports additional offences.
This means the current filing narrows the charges being pursued at this stage. It does not amount to an acquittal, a judicial declaration of innocence or a permanent closure of the UAPA investigation.
Defence Challenges the Terror Allegations
VanDyke’s lawyer, Rohit Dandriyal, has challenged the basis of the terrorism allegations.
He argued that the NIA had not found evidence supporting the UAPA case despite receiving an additional 90 days to investigate. The defence described the earlier allegations as fictitious and questioned the continued incarceration of the accused.
These are submissions by the defence and should not be confused with findings made by the court.
The legal dispute now centres on the evidence supporting the immigration charges, the status of the wider investigation and any applications concerning the accused’s custody or bail.
March Arrests and Custody Timeline
The seven foreign nationals were arrested on March 13, 2026.
On March 16, the court granted the NIA 11 days of custody for interrogation. After that period, the accused were remanded to judicial custody.
The agency subsequently obtained additional time to complete its investigation. The chargesheet was filed on September 8, within the extended investigation period.
The case will now proceed before the special court, which will examine the chargesheet, consider the evidence and determine the next procedural steps.
No conviction has been recorded against the seven accused in this matter.
The420 Insight: The most significant development is the gap between the serious allegations that led to the March arrests and the narrower chargesheet filed in September. The NIA must now establish the immigration violations through documentary and travel evidence, while any future UAPA charges would require a separate evidentiary basis. The defence is entitled to challenge the prolonged investigation and custody. The case will test how courts balance national-security investigations with the requirement that serious allegations be supported by evidence rather than suspicion alone.
https://www.linkedin.com/company/policetechnology/
