NIA Court Allows Special Dietary Arrangements for U.S. National Accused in Myanmar Terror Case
A Special NIA Court in Delhi has permitted special dietary arrangements for Matthew Aaron VanDyke, a United States national accused in the alleged Myanmar terror training module case, after he complained that the food served in Tihar Jail had severely affected his health. Additional Sessions Judge Prashant Sharma disposed of VanDyke’s application by directing prison authorities to take appropriate measures to safeguard his health and well-being while he remains in judicial custody.
VanDyke had claimed that he was unable to consume the standard prison diet because it was excessively spicy, oily and greasy for him. Through his counsel, he informed the court that he had effectively remained on a prolonged hunger strike, lost nearly 14 kilograms, and suffered a significant decline in his physical condition, including weakness and nutritional deficiencies. He sought permission to prepare his own meals and requested various food items and cooking facilities.
After considering medical concerns and submissions from both sides, the court partially allowed the plea. It directed Tihar Jail authorities to provide VanDyke with a cook to prepare suitable meals, along with access to an electric kettle and a mosquito net to ensure basic health and hygiene. The court, however, did not grant all the facilities and food items originally sought by the accused, instead leaving the detailed implementation to the jail administration in accordance with prison rules.
The case forms part of an NIA investigation into an alleged international conspiracy involving foreign nationals accused of providing military training and logistical support to insurgent groups operating in Myanmar and along India’s northeastern border. According to the NIA, VanDyke and several foreign nationals, including Ukrainian citizens, were arrested earlier this year for allegedly conspiring to facilitate terrorist activities, supply equipment and establish links with banned insurgent organisations. The accused have denied the allegations, and the trial is yet to commence.
While granting the limited relief, the Special Court clarified that the order was based solely on humanitarian and medical considerations and should not be interpreted as expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution’s case. The court emphasized that every undertrial, irrespective of the nature of the allegations, is entitled to adequate healthcare and conditions necessary to preserve life and dignity while in custody.
