Kumar Bahukhandi
American national Matthew VanDyke, whose case is under investigation by the NIA. The agency’s latest chargesheet does not invoke UAPA provisions, but prosecutors have told the court that the investigation into possible offences under the anti-terror law is continuing and could result in a supplementary chargesheet. (Photo: Social Media/File)
Agency tells court terror-related investigation is continuing and supplementary chargesheet may follow; Congress MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi questions absence of UAPA provisions
Key Highlights
- Latest chargesheet against Matthew VanDyke and six Ukrainian nationals does not include UAPA provisions.
- Prosecution says investigation into possible UAPA offences remains underway.
- A supplementary chargesheet could be filed if further evidence establishes additional offences.
- Sources say the present filing was made as the applicable statutory custody period approached its deadline.
- The seven foreign nationals face allegations connected with illegal entry into Myanmar and drone-warfare training of ethnic armed groups.
- Congress MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi has questioned the absence of UAPA provisions.
- Diplomatic engagement concerning a detained US citizen should not, without evidence, be equated with interference in the investigation.
New Delhi: The National Investigation Agency’s latest chargesheet against American national Matthew VanDyke and six Ukrainian nationals does not contain provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, but the omission does not mean that the terror-related investigation against the seven accused has been closed, according to sources familiar with the proceedings.
The chargesheet has instead invoked provisions relating to immigration and foreigners law after the agency concluded that offences under those provisions had already been established during its investigation.
The distinction has assumed significance following questions over why UAPA provisions did not figure in the latest chargesheet despite the serious nature of the allegations originally under investigation.
The NIA’s Special Public Prosecutor informed the court that investigation into possible offences under the UAPA remains underway and that the agency could file a supplementary chargesheet if evidence gathered during further investigation establishes such offences.
Sources consequently cautioned against interpreting the present chargesheet as either the dropping of UAPA allegations or the closure of the wider investigation.
Why the Chargesheet Was Filed Now
The timing of the filing is also significant.
VanDyke’s statutory custody period was approaching an important deadline on September 8. Under the UAPA framework, an investigating agency may, subject to the statutory procedure and court approval, receive an extended period of up to 180 days for investigation while an accused remains in custody.
Failure to file the requisite chargesheet within the applicable statutory period can provide an accused grounds to seek statutory or default bail.
Sources said the NIA therefore proceeded with a chargesheet covering offences it considered already established rather than allowing the applicable custody period to expire while the broader investigation continued.
The filing of the chargesheet does not prevent further investigation. If additional evidence establishes other offences, the agency can place that material before the court through a supplementary chargesheet.
Seven Foreign Nationals Under Investigation
VanDyke and six Ukrainian nationals were arrested in March in connection with allegations involving illegal entry into Myanmar and drone-warfare training of ethnic armed groups.
The NIA has not dropped its terror-related investigation against any of the seven accused, sources maintained.
This distinction is crucial: the current chargesheet and the continuing investigation are not necessarily the same thing. The first concerns offences the agency says it is presently prepared to prosecute; the second concerns allegations on which investigators say their work has not concluded.
Singhvi Questions Absence of UAPA Charges
No determination of guilt has been made, and the allegations against the accused remain subject to judicial proceedings.
The development has also entered the political arena after Congress MP and senior Supreme Court advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi questioned reports concerning the absence of terror charges from the latest chargesheet.
“If reports are true that terror charges against U.S. citizen Matthew Van Dyke have been dropped after high-level U.S.-India meetings, the Modi Government owes India an explanation,” Singhvi said.
He questioned how allegations concerning illegal entry, associations with armed groups and drone-warfare training could have resulted in terror charges being dropped.
The premise of that criticism, however, is disputed by sources associated with the investigation, who maintain that the UAPA investigation has not been dropped and remains open.
US Consular Interest Adds Diplomatic Dimension
The detention of an American citizen has inevitably attracted US diplomatic attention.
Sources said it was normal diplomatic practice for American representatives to raise the welfare and legal circumstances of a US citizen detained overseas. India similarly seeks consular access, legal assistance and fair treatment when Indian nationals are detained in foreign countries.
Such diplomatic or consular engagement, by itself, does not establish interference with a criminal investigation.
On September 2, an X account purportedly operated by VanDyke’s family appealed to the US government for his release from Tihar Jail. The account claimed that he was innocent and alleged that he was being denied basic detainee rights.
Those are claims made on his behalf and should not be presented as independently established facts.
The Crucial Question Is What Comes Next
The latest chargesheet therefore represents an important stage in the case, but not necessarily its conclusion.
The absence of UAPA provisions from the present filing raises legitimate questions, particularly given the nature of the allegations being investigated. At the same time, treating that absence as proof that the NIA has abandoned its terror investigation would go beyond what the agency’s position before the court presently indicates.
The decisive development will be whether the continuing investigation produces evidence that the NIA considers sufficient to invoke UAPA offences and whether a supplementary chargesheet is subsequently filed.
Until then, two facts need to remain distinct: UAPA provisions are absent from the current chargesheet, but according to the prosecution, the UAPA investigation itself remains open.
