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.
2.jpg)
3.jpg)
2.jpg)
2.jpg)
