1
New Delhi: In a significant development, the National Investigation Agency has not pressed charges under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against US national Matthew Aaron VanDyke and six Ukrainians in the chargesheet filed before a Delhi court on Tuesday, substantially reducing the penal exposure in a case that had earlier involved allegations of drone warfare training, drone operations and an alleged attack on a civilian aircraft in Myanmar.
VanDyke’s family told this newspaper that the chargesheet does not contain charges relating to the alleged drone activities or the alleged attack on the Myanmar-based aircraft. According to the family, this includes allegations concerning the funding or transportation of drones and drone training. The family said VanDyke was not involved in any of these activities.
With the UAPA charges not included in Tuesday’s chargesheet, VanDyke is presently facing prosecution only under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, in connection with his alleged passage through a restricted area.
The development is significant because the allegations that had potentially exposed VanDyke and the six Ukrainians to terrorism charges have not translated into UAPA charges in the present chargesheet. The NIA’s case before the court had earlier included allegations concerning drone warfare and the alleged Myanmar aircraft attack, but the prosecution presently filed against the seven is under immigration law.
The chargesheet filed on Tuesday invokes Sections 21 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025. Section 21 carries imprisonment of up to five years, or a fine of up to Rs 5 lakh, or both, while Section 23 carries imprisonment of up to three years, or a fine of up to Rs 3 lakh, or both. Neither provision prescribes a mandatory minimum prison sentence.
The difference is substantial when compared with the UAPA provision previously invoked against VanDyke. Section 18 of the UAPA provides for a minimum five-year prison sentence, which can extend to life imprisonment, besides a fine, for conspiracy, attempt, abetment, advice or facilitation relating to a terrorist act.
The offences actually included in Tuesday’s chargesheet therefore carry a maximum imprisonment of five years under the more serious of the two Immigration and Foreigners Act provisions, with no mandatory minimum sentence. By contrast, the UAPA provision previously invoked carried a minimum five-year sentence and a maximum of life imprisonment.
The NIA had, as recently as 4 September, told a Delhi court that VanDyke and the six Ukrainians were allegedly linked to a drone attack on a civilian aircraft in Myanmar. The agency had alleged that the seven were involved in drone warfare training, drone operations, assembly and jamming technology for Myanmar-based ethnic armed groups.
The NIA, however, has told the court that its investigation under the UAPA remains open for further investigation and that a supplementary chargesheet could be filed if an offence under the anti-terror law is subsequently made out. The absence of UAPA charges in Tuesday’s chargesheet therefore does not amount to a final closure of the terrorism-related investigation.
Attempts to reach NIA Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi for a response on the development did not elicit a response at the time of publication.
The NIA had earlier alleged that the foreign nationals entered Mizoram without the requisite permits before crossing into Myanmar, where they allegedly interacted with ethnic armed groups and participated in or facilitated drone-related training. The agency had also alleged that material recovered from seized electronic devices was relevant to the investigation.
VanDyke was detained at Kolkata airport in March, while the six Ukrainians were arrested at airports in Delhi and Lucknow.
The present chargesheet therefore places the immediate prosecution of VanDyke and the six Ukrainians on immigration-related offences, while leaving the more serious UAPA allegations under investigation.
The family’s assertion that no charges have been brought over the drone-related allegations or the alleged aircraft attack could not be independently verified with the NIA at the time of publication.