Congress leader Jairam Ramesh has questioned the Centre after the National Investigation Agency (NIA) did not invoke provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in its chargesheet against US national Matthew Aaron VanDyke and six Ukrainian nationals.

Ramesh alleged that the decision may have followed pressure from the United States and demanded an explanation from the Narendra Modi government. He described the development as “bullying” in a post on X. 

The NIA filed its chargesheet on September 8 before a special court at Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Courts. Instead of UAPA provisions, the agency has invoked Sections 21 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act in the present chargesheet. The matter is scheduled for consideration before Special NIA Judge Prashant Sharma on October 1. 

Jairam Ramesh Questions Centre’s Decision

Reacting to the development, Ramesh questioned whether the NIA had dropped the UAPA provisions after completing its investigation or whether the agency had been pressured to do so.

He specifically linked the decision to possible intervention by US authorities and asked what India expected in return. His remarks represent the Congress leader’s political allegation; there is no independent evidence establishing that the US government pressured the NIA to alter the chargesheet. 

The Congress has therefore turned the legal development into a political issue, particularly because the case initially involved serious national-security allegations.

What the NIA Has Charged

The latest chargesheet represents a significant change from the provisions under which the case was initially registered.

The case was originally registered in March under Section 18 of the UAPA, relating to conspiracy and attempts connected with terrorist activities, along with provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. However, the September 8 chargesheet does not presently contain UAPA offences.

Instead, the NIA has proceeded under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, focusing on alleged violations relating to the entry, movement and stay of foreign nationals in India.

The agency's special public prosecutor has said the investigation is continuing. If further evidence establishes offences under the UAPA, the NIA could file a supplementary chargesheet. (The News Mill)

VanDyke and Six Ukrainians Arrested in March

VanDyke and six Ukrainian nationals were arrested in March 2026 as part of an investigation into their alleged movements between India and Myanmar.

The accused Ukrainians have been identified as Petro Hurba, Taras Slyviak, Ivan Sukmanovskyi, Marian Stefankiv, Maksim Honcharuk and Viktor Kaminskyi. 

Earlier court proceedings recorded allegations that the foreign nationals travelled through India's Northeast and were linked to activities involving ethnic armed organisations in Myanmar. The NIA had also alleged that the group was involved in providing weapons-related or military training and other support.

Those allegations remain allegations and have not been established as facts by a court.

Why the UAPA Decision Matters

The UAPA is India's principal anti-terror legislation and carries significantly more serious legal consequences than ordinary immigration-related offences.

The decision not to include UAPA sections in the current chargesheet therefore changes the immediate legal character of the case. However, it does not amount to an acquittal or a judicial declaration that the original allegations were false.

The NIA has specifically retained the possibility of further legal action if its continuing investigation produces evidence supporting additional offences. 

Family Had Sought US Intervention

Before the chargesheet was filed, an X account purportedly operated by VanDyke's family had appealed for US diplomatic intervention.

The family alleged that VanDyke was being denied basic detainee rights and was being held in solitary confinement at Tihar Jail. It also maintained that he was innocent and described his previous work as involving documentation of humanitarian crises and assistance to people affected by conflict. (The News Mill)

These claims have not been independently established in the current proceedings.

Investigation Still Open

The NIA's latest filing does not close the wider investigation. The agency has indicated that additional evidence could lead to a supplementary chargesheet, including possible UAPA offences.

For the Congress, however, the change in charges has raised questions about the government's handling of a case that initially carried national-security and terrorism allegations.

The court will now examine the chargesheet and the evidence placed before it. Until judicial findings are made, the allegations against VanDyke and the six Ukrainian nationals remain subject to the legal process.

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to set a specific timeline for completing the trial in the Shraddha Walkar murder case against accused Aaftab Amin Poonawala, noting that proceedings in the case are already being conducted on a day-to-day basis. The court was hearing a petition filed by Walkar's brother seeking directions for an early conclusion of the trial. Justice Madhu Jain observed that the trial court was already making efforts to complete the proceedings as quickly as possible and therefore no additional directions were required at this stage. The petition had sought the High Court's intervention to ensure that the trial, which has remained under close public attention, reaches its conclusion without unnecessary delay.

During the hearing, Justice Jain took note of the manner in which proceedings were being conducted before the trial court. The High Court observed that the lower court was making “every endeavour” to conclude the matter at the earliest and that hearings were already taking place on a daily basis. In view of this, the court found no reason to impose a separate deadline. “It is clear that the trial court is making every endeavour to conclude the trial as soon as possible. No further directions are required as the trial is going on a day to day basis,” Justice Jain said. The observation effectively means that the existing pace of proceedings will continue without a High Court-mandated date by which the trial must be completed.

The petition had been moved by Shraddha Walkar's brother with the objective of securing an early conclusion to the proceedings against Aaftab Amin Poonawala. However, the High Court's order makes clear that it is satisfied, for now, with the steps being taken by the trial court. Rather than setting a fixed deadline, Justice Jain allowed the day-to-day trial process to continue. The material provided does not specify how many witnesses have been examined so far, how much evidence remains to be recorded or when the trial court is expected to deliver its final decision. With the High Court declining to issue further directions, the focus will remain on the ongoing proceedings before the trial court and its efforts to bring the case to a conclusion at the earliest possible stage.

The two accused were produced before the court after the expiry of their earlier judicial custody period. Special CBI Judge Ajay Gupta passed the order on an application moved by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which sought an extension of their custody as the investigation continues.

Representing the agency, Public Prosecutor Neetu Singh argued for the extension before the court. The matter remains under active investigation by the CBI, which is probing an alleged network involved in obtaining and distributing leaked examination papers ahead of the national-level medical entrance test.

According to investigators, the case has so far led to the arrest of 12 individuals. Those arrested include Mangi Lal Bival, Vikas Bival, Dinesh Bival, Yash Yadav, Shubham Khairnar, Manisha Waghmare, Prahlad Kulkarni, Dhananjay Lokhande, Manisha Mandhare, Shivraj Raghunath Motegaonkar, Manisha Sanjay Havaldar and Dr Manoj Shirure. All the accused are currently lodged in judicial custody.

The case has attracted significant attention due to the seriousness of the allegations and the scale of the examination involved. NEET-UG is one of India’s largest entrance examinations, conducted annually for admission to undergraduate medical courses across the country.

The court has also passed several interim orders in the matter over the past few weeks. Earlier, accused Yash Yadav was permitted to appear in the re-conducted NEET-UG examination held on June 21 and was also allowed to attend his sister’s wedding on June 22. In a separate order, the court rejected the regular bail application filed by accused Manisha Waghmare.

The investigation stems from a complaint filed by a government official on May 12, 2026. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Prevention of Corruption Act and laws related to the use of unfair means in public examinations.

According to the CBI, Mangi Lal Bival allegedly approached Shubham Khairnar to obtain the NEET-UG question paper for his son, Vikas Bival. Investigators claim that leaked examination material was recovered from Mangi Lal Bival’s mobile phone during the probe.

The agency has further alleged that Mangi Lal Bival procured the leaked paper from Yash Yadav for ₹10 lakh and subsequently facilitated its circulation to other candidates. During questioning, Vikas Bival reportedly admitted that he came in contact with Yash Yadav while attending coaching classes in Rajasthan’s Sikar district.

CBI officials believe the accused were part of a larger conspiracy involving the procurement and sale of confidential examination material. The agency has alleged that leaked papers were sold to candidates for amounts reaching up to ₹12 lakh.

The developments come amid continued scrutiny of examination security mechanisms and concerns over malpractice in competitive recruitment and admission tests. Investigators are examining financial transactions, digital evidence and communication records to establish the extent of the alleged network.

With the court extending the judicial custody of two key accused, the investigation is expected to continue in the coming days. The next hearing in the matter is scheduled for July 11.