When a high-profile national security investigation concludes with minor statutory violations instead of heavy terror charges, questions are bound to follow. That is precisely what happened when the National Investigation Agency filed its chargesheet involving US national Matthew Aaron VanDyke and six Ukrainian citizens, omitting the severe Unlawful Activities Prevention Act provisions entirely.
Advocate Rohit Dandriyal, representing VanDyke, did not mince words when addressing reporters about the shift. After nearly half a year behind bars under the weight of severe national security allegations, his client faces only sections of the Foreigners Act. This dramatic turn of events places investigative transparency under an intense microscope.
The Backdrop of the Arrest
The entire ordeal kicked off on March 13, 2026, when authorities intercepted VanDyke during a sweep at Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport. As the founder of the security firm Sons of Liberty International and a self-described combat specialist, his profile immediately drew heavy scrutiny.
Investigators initially claimed that VanDyke alongside Ukrainian nationals Hurba Petro, Slyviak Taras, Ivan Sukmanovskyi, Stefankiv Marian, Honcharuk Maksim, and Kaminskyi Viktor were engaged in training operations for ethnic armed groups in Myanmar. Because these groups were deemed inimical to security interests, the agency registered the case under Section 18 of the UAPA for terror conspiracy, alongside sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
For 180 days, the suspects remained in custody while intelligence units combed through digital footprints, communication logs, and financial records. Families petitioned international governments for diplomatic intervention, claiming total innocence and highlighting humanitarian backgrounds.
The Chargesheet Shocker
When Special NIA Judge Prashant Sharma received the formal paperwork, the severe terror counts were entirely missing. Instead, the agency brought forward charges under Sections 21 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act.
These specific sections typically deal with administrative breaches, such as overstaying visas or moving through restricted zones without proper clearance. They carry lesser penalties and are compoundable at the level of the Foreigners Regional Registration Office.
Dandriyal pointed out the obvious contradiction in how authorities handled the case. Holding someone for 180 days under a heavy anti-terror law only to pivot to immigration infractions at the filing stage damages institutional credibility. It forces legal experts to ask how initial threat assessments escalated so drastically without sustaining the evidence required to back them up in court.
The Ongoing Legal Stance
Despite dropping the anti-terror clauses in the primary filing, the state's legal team has kept a backdoor open. Prosecutors maintain that the broader inquiry remains active. They noted that supplementary paperwork could still materialize if further digging uncovers concrete proof tying the accused to banned activities.
Special Judge Prashant Sharma has set the next hearing for October 1 to review the charges formally. Defense attorneys plan to use the absence of terror charges to aggressively push for freedom, arguing that holding foreign nationals for months over administrative visa issues sets a troubling precedent.
The defense intends to dismantle the remaining allegations piece by piece when proceedings resume. The court will ultimately decide whether administrative infractions are all that remain or if fresh evidence will breathe life back into the dormant conspiracy claims.
