Last Updated:
The clarification comes after the NIA filed a chargesheet against the seven accused under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, without invoking UAPA provisions in the chargesheet
Matthew Aaron VanDyke was arrested by the NIA on March 13. File image
The government has clarified that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has not dropped the terror investigation against US national Matthew Aaron Van Dyke and six Ukrainian nationals, saying the agency’s decision to file a chargesheet under the Immigration and Foreigners Act (IFA) does not amount to closure of the probe under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Van Dyke and the six Ukrainian nationals were arrested in March 2026 in a case initially registered under Section 18 of the UAPA and other provisions. They were accused of allegedly entering Myanmar illegally and providing drone-warfare training to ethnic armed groups.
The clarification comes after the NIA filed a chargesheet against the seven accused under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, without invoking UAPA provisions in the chargesheet. The development had raised questions over whether the terror-related charges against the accused had effectively been dropped. The Congress had also questioned the move and sought to know why the UAPA provisions were not part of the chargesheet.
The government, however, has said the two developments should not be conflated.
THE CLARIFICATION
According to the government, the NIA’s investigation into the alleged UAPA offences continues against all seven accused. What has been chargesheeted at this stage are offences under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, which the agency says had already been fully established during the investigation.
The timing of the chargesheet is linked to the statutory period governing custody during a UAPA investigation.
Under the UAPA framework, an investigating agency can seek up to 180 days to complete its investigation while an accused remains in custody, subject to the statutory process. If the applicable period expires without the requisite chargesheet being filed, an accused can seek statutory or default bail.
In the Van Dyke case, the government says the 180-day period of judicial custody would have expired on September 8.
With the IFA-related offences already established, the NIA filed a chargesheet covering those offences rather than allow the statutory period to expire. The government says this was a procedural step and not the closure of the wider investigation.
UAPA CHARGES DROPPED?
The government says no.
The chargesheet itself records that the investigation under the UAPA is continuing. Investigating agencies can also conduct further investigation after filing a chargesheet and submit a supplementary chargesheet if additional evidence establishes further offences.
This means the absence of UAPA provisions from the present chargesheet does not, by itself, establish that the terror investigation has been withdrawn or abandoned.
The government’s position, therefore, is that the IFA case has reached the chargesheet stage while the UAPA investigation remains open.
WHY THE CONTROVERSY?
The controversy followed reports that the NIA had chargesheeted Van Dyke and the six Ukrainian nationals under immigration-related provisions but had not invoked the UAPA sections under which the case was originally registered.
That led to questions over whether the nature of the case had changed and why the alleged terror-related offences were not included in the chargesheet filed before the custody deadline.
The Congress subsequently questioned the NIA’s decision and raised the issue of a possible “quid pro quo”, seeking an explanation for why the UAPA charges were absent.
The government has rejected the interpretation that the UAPA case has been dropped, stressing that filing a chargesheet for offences that have already been established does not prevent the agency from continuing its investigation into other alleged offences.
Quick Answers
Ask News18The NIA filed a chargesheet under the Immigration and Foreigners Act (IFA) because the 180-day period for judicial custody in the UAPA investigation was expiring on September 8, 2026. This was a procedural step to prevent the accused from seeking statutory bail, as IFA offenses were already established, while the UAPA probe continues separately.
Ask News18About the Author
The News Desk is a team of passionate editors and writers who break and analyse the most important events unfolding in India and abroad. From live updates to exclusive reports to in-depth explainers, …Read More
September 09, 2026, 2:41 PM IST
Read More
Source link
[ad_3]
