The NIA's chargesheet against American mercenary Matthew Van Dyke and six Ukrainian nationals dropped UAPA terror charges, instead charging them under the Immigration and Foreigners Act X
Crime

Terror Plot Twist: NIA Drops UAPA Charges Against American Mercenary Matthew Van Dyke and Six Ukrainian Nationals

The National Investigation Agency’s chargesheet against Van Dyke and six Ukrainian nationals, arrested earlier this year for allegedly training ethnic armed groups in Myanmar, charges them under the Immigration and Foreigners Act.

Author : Khushboo Singh

Key Points

The NIA's chargesheet against Van Dyke and six Ukrainian nationals excludes UAPA terror charges, instead charging them under the Immigration and Foreigners Act.
Van Dyke was detained in Kolkata in March 2026, while the six Ukrainian nationals were arrested in Delhi and Lucknow, allegedly after training ethnic armed groups fighting Myanmar's military junta.
The chargesheet alleges the group transported drones from Europe to Myanmar via India, and the NIA has separately raised the group's alleged connection to a drone attack on a civilian aircraft in Myanmar.

IN A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has not invoked the anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in its chargesheet filed on Tuesday, September 8, 2026, against American mercenary Matthew Aaron Van Dyke and six Ukrainian nationals. These accused were arrested at different airports during a secret operation carried out by Indian agencies in March 2026. Van Dyke and the Ukrainian nationals were allegedly training anti-India ethnic armed groups in Myanmar, and were initially booked under the stringent UAPA law.

What the NIA's Chargesheet Says

However, in the chargesheet filed in the court of special judge Prashant Sharma at Rouse Avenue Courts, the terror charges against the accused were not included. The NIA has now charged VanDyke and the others under Sections 21 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act. These provisions relate to violations involving the entry, movement and stay of foreign nationals in India.

See also: ‘Bail is the Rule, Even Under UAPA’: SC Questions Earlier Judgement Denying Bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam

Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi told the court that the NIA had not invoked the UAPA in its chargesheet but had kept the investigation into offences under the anti-terror law pending. If  the agency’s further investigation finds that the group committed an offence under the UAPA, then a supplementary chargesheet can be filed, Prosecutor Tyagi added. 

When asked why the terror-related charges had been dropped against the accused, spokesperson for Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) Randhir Jaiswal, while speaking at a press briefing, gave no specific explanation and described the matter as a “legal matter.” Jaiswal further remarked that the case against Van Dyke and the Ukrainian nationals will proceed as “per the directives of the court.”

How the NIA Arrested Van Dyke and the Ukrainian Nationals

According to the NIA, American mercenary Matthew Van Dyke, along with his Ukrainian associates, entered India using valid visas before travelling to Mizoram, which is a protected area. The chargesheet stated that they later crossed the border into Myanmar.

VanDyke was detained at Kolkata airport on March 13, 2026 while the Ukrainian nationals — Hurba Petro, Taras Slyviak, Ivan Sukmanovskyi, Marian Stefankiv, Maksim Honcharuk, and Viktor Kaminskyi — were arrested at airports in Delhi and Lucknow. The group was charged under Section 18 of the UAPA, which deals with punishment for conspiracy to carry out terrorist activities on Indian soil.

Who Is Matthew Van Dyke? 

The key accused in the NIA case was Matthew Van Dyke, a well-known figure who has operated in conflict zones around the world. Van Dyke, who is believed to have links to what is described as the American “deep state,” founded Sons of Liberty International (SOLI), a non-profit security organisation that provides training to groups fighting authoritarian governments. He has previously participated in armed conflicts in Libya and Syria, where the ruling regimes were later overthrown.

The key accused in the NIA case was Matthew Van Dyke, a well-known figure who has operated in conflict zones around the world

See also: ‘Orwellian Dystopia’ and ‘Conduct Worthy of Derision’: Allahabad High Court Slams District Magistrate Over NSA Detention of DU Graduate in Noida Workers’ Protest

According to the NIA, after entering Myanmar from Mizoram, Van Dyke and the others came into contact with ethnic armed groups (EAGs). These groups have been fighting Myanmar’s military junta — a government led by a committee of high-ranking military officers who seize power by force — since the 2021 military coup in the country. The agency has alleged that the EAGs had links with insurgent organisations that were operating across India.

The chargesheet further alleged that Van Dyke and the Ukrainian nationals transported a large shipment of drones from Europe to Myanmar through India.

On September 4, 2026, the NIA told the court that the group was allegedly involved in a drone attack targeting a civilian aircraft in Myanmar. Earlier this year, in February 2026, local media reports from Myanmar said a passenger plane was hit by a suicide drone while preparing to take off for Mandalay. However, it remains unclear whether the NIA was referring to this particular incident. 

The agency also said it was investigating the group's alleged connections with terror masterminds based in Myanmar.

The Delhi court has scheduled the next hearing in this matter for October 1, 2026.

(Edited by Harsh Pandey)

Suggested reading:

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube and WhatsApp

Download our app on Play Store

Former Delhi Chief Secretary Rakesh Mehta Dies By Suicide At Noida Residence

When the Tap Runs Dry: Women Carry More Than Water in Kazakhstan

What Remains After Nepal’s Gen Z Protests? Survivors Reflect One Year Later

Hundreds Of Russian Teens Face Terrorism Charges As Wartime Crackdown Intensifies

Ken Paxton’s Financial Disclosures Appear to Violate Federal Ethics Law, Experts Say