FirstAlerts

NIA files chargesheet against seven foreign nationals, does not invoke UAPA

The National Investigation Agency has filed a chargesheet against seven foreign nationals, including a US citizen, without invoking the stringent UAPA provisions.

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 8, 2026, 8:42 a.m. ET
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has filed a against seven foreign nationals in a district court, according to the Economic Times. The pertains to illegal entry, stay and movement, and does not invoke the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against the accused. The accused are US citizen Matthew Aaron Van Dyke, Kaminskyi Viktor, Hurba Petro, Slyviak Taras, Ivan Sukmanovskyi, Stefankiv Marian, and Honcharuk Maksim. The NIA had earlier registered a case against them under UAPA provisions along with sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), but did not invoke UAPA in the . The agency had earlier told the court that the accused were being probed for a wide-ranging terror conspiracy, including assistance to ethnic armed groups in India and Myanmar, and imparting drone training to them. The case is at the charging stage, and the matter is undecided.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 18 Sept 2026, 12:42current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble β€” all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources β€” accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements β€” and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld β€” a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them β€” and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.