UAPA dropped? NIA says terror probe against US mercenary VanDyke is still on

The National Investigation Agency has said its probe into the alleged terror links of US citizen Matthew Aaron VanDyke and six Ukrainian nationals is still underway, amid questions over why UAPA provisions were not included in the agency's chargesheet.

The NIA has clarified that it has not dropped its investigation under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against VanDyke and the six Ukrainian nationals.

The clarification comes after the agency filed a chargesheet in the case under the Immigration and Foreigners Act (IFA), without invoking the UAPA provisions under which the case was initially registered.

According to agency sources, offences under the immigration and foreigners law had been established during the investigation so far, which led to the chargesheet being filed under those provisions.

UAPA charges could come later

The NIA's Special Public Prosecutor said the investigation into the UAPA-related allegations remains in progress.

If the investigation establishes that offences under the UAPA have been committed, the agency could file a supplementary chargesheet, the prosecutor said.

This means the absence of UAPA provisions from the current chargesheet does not necessarily mark the end of the terror-related investigation.

Who is Matthew VanDyke?

VanDyke, a US citizen who describes himself as a combat specialist, was arrested at Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport in Kolkata on March 13, 2026.

He is the founder of Sons of Liberty International (SOLI), a security firm.

The NIA also arrested six Ukrainian nationals in connection with the case: Hurba Petro, Slyviak Taras, Ivan Sukmanovskyi, Stefankiv Marian, Honcharuk Maksim and Kaminskyi Viktor.

What are the allegations?

The accused have allegedly been involved in supporting ethnic armed groups in Myanmar, including through the supply of weapons, terrorist hardware and training, according to the NIA investigation.

The case was initially registered under the UAPA, making the absence of UAPA charges in the latest chargesheet a point of scrutiny.

The agency, however, maintains that its investigation into the alleged UAPA offences has not been closed.

The key distinction in the case is between the chargesheet filed so far and the broader investigation that remains pending.

The NIA has established alleged offences under the Immigration and Foreigners Act sufficiently to file its current chargesheet. The agency's prosecutor has indicated that the UAPA investigation is continuing and that additional charges could be brought through a supplementary chargesheet if the evidence supports them.

Therefore, the current chargesheet should not automatically be interpreted as the NIA abandoning the terror angle. The eventual outcome of the UAPA investigation will depend on the evidence collected by the agency and any subsequent legal proceedings.