The Uber Files: How 2014 Delhi Rape Case Unfolded

The survivor had hired a cab from Gurugram to Delhi's Inderlok in 2014 when she was raped by the Uber driver.

(Photo: PTI)

Almost eight years ago, a 27-year-old woman was raped by an Uber driver on 5 December 2014 in Delhi – leading to the cab aggregator's ban in the national capital, and the eventual exit of Uber co-founder and former CEO Travis Kalanick.

The driver, 32-year-old Shiv Kumar Yadav, convicted by a Delhi court, is serving life imprisonment. The case, and the horrific incident, is back in news.

Data from The Uber Files – internal emails and documents obtained by The Guardian and shared with the Indian Express – which is a part of the International Consortium of Investigative journalists – revealed that the cab aggregator's first response to the crime was to "shift blame to flawed Indian background checks."

Email exchanges also revealed that the company's focus was on "damage control to prevent a reputational fallout in other global markets."

“We’re in crisis talks right now and the media is blazing…The Indian driver was indeed licensed, and the weakness/flaw appears to be in the local licensing scheme… the view in the US is that we can expect inquiries across our markets on the issue of background checks, in the light of what has happened in India,’’ Mark MacGann, then Uber’s Head of Public Policy for Europe and Middle East, wrote on 8 December, in a pitch to shift blame on Indian authorities, the newspaper reported on Monday, 11 July.

What Happened on 5 Dec 2014?

The survivor, who then worked in a finance company in Gurugram, had hired an Uber cab to return to her home in northwest Delhi's Inderlok on the night of 5 December 2014. She was returning home around 9 pm – after having dinner with her friends – when Uber driver Shiv Kumar Yadav raped her.

“On her way back, the woman slept on the back seat of the car. On waking up she found that the cab driver had stopped the car at a secluded place and was molesting her. When she tried to raise an alarm and flee, she found the car’s doors locked. The driver then thrashed her and raped,” an investigating officer told The Hindu on 6 December 2014, quoting from the woman's complaint.

He threatened to kill her if she 'revealed the incident' to anyone, before dropping her home in Inderlok.

“The woman clicked a photograph of the car’s number plate and then made a call to the police control room and reported the incident,” the officer added.

A case was registered under Sections 376 (rape), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The driver was arrested two days later, on 7 December 2014 – from Uttar Pradesh's Mathura.

In a public statement, Uber, before being banned in the national capital, had said: “Our thoughts are with the victim of this terrible crime, and we are working with the police as they investigate. We will assist them in any way we can.”

How the Case Unfolded

Almost two months after the incident, on 9 January, a special fast track court began hearing the arguments on framing charges in the case.

During investigation, then 31-year-old Yadav was found to be not only using a 'fake ID' – but he also had a previous rape charge against him from 2011. While that case had ended in an acquittal due to lack of evidence, the Delhi Police had arrested Yadav and held him for six months. In 2004, the driver was charged with sexual assault in Uttar Pradesh's Mainpuri.

“He is a compulsive sex offender. You won’t find a single household in the village whose woman he hadn’t teased or molested. I know no less than 26-27 cases that never reached police,” Kushun Singh, a farmer and neighbour, told the Hindustan Times in early 2015.

Almost ten months after the incident, a Delhi court held Yadav guilty on charges of rape and endangering the life of the victim. He was sentenced to lifetime imprisonment in 2015.

“Sexual assault is a terrible crime and we are pleased he has now been brought to justice. Safety is a priority for Uber and we have made many improvements – in terms of new technology, enhanced background checks and better 24/7 customer support – as a result of the lessons we learned from this awful case. That said, Uber can always do better, which is why are continually looking for ways to improve safety before, during and after the ride," Uber, which resumed operations after a six-month hiatus said in a statement in June 2015.

But private documents, accessed by multiple news outlets in 2017, showed that they were secretly collecting private medical information of the survivor.

Why the Survivor Sued Uber

In December 2017, the survivor filed a new defamation suit in the US after reports emerged suggesting that Uber had investigated the complaint – by obtaining her medical records and speculating whether she had 'made up the claim' to hurt the firm.

Eric Alexander, who then ran Uber's business in Asia, is said to have shared the survivor's record with CEO Travis Kalanick. The top executives had reportedly speculated whether Ola – still Uber's competitor in India – was behind the 'sabotage attempt.'

The survivor, who had moved to the US, alleged in the lawsuit that Uber had not only violated her privacy but also defamed her character.

"Uber executives duplicitously and publicly decried the rape, expressing sympathy for the plaintiff, and shock and regret at the violent attack, while privately speculating, as outlandish as it is, that she had colluded with a rival company to harm Uber's business," the civil lawsuit, later settled by Uber, said.

Kalanick was ousted as the CEO in June that year, and when allegations were made public, Uber confirmed that Alexander no longer worked in the firm.

The Uber Files Revelation: 'Media Is Blazing' & Other Emails

According to The Indian Express, Mark MacGann, then Uber’s Head of Public Policy for Europe and Middle East, wrote on 8 December 2014:

“We’re in crisis talks right now and the media is blazing…The Indian driver was indeed licensed, and the weakness/flaw appears to be in the local licensing scheme… the view in the US is that we can expect inquiries across our markets on the issue of background checks, in the light of what has happened in India.’’

“We had done what was required in terms of the Indian regulations. However, it’s clear the checks required for a driver to obtain a commercial license from the authorities now appears to be insufficient as it appears the accused also had some previous rape allegations, which the Delhi police check did not identify (in what’s called a ‘character certificate.’),” Niall Wass, then Uber’s Senior Vice President for Europe, Middle East and Africa, wrote, The Indian Express revealed.

Another top executive wrote to Uber Managers: “Can you guys lay out other places where you think in light of India/reputation issues, you could see courts or regulators find a way or reason to shut us down.”

The most important step that Uber took after the rape case was to introduce two new in-app features in India: the receipt of a ‘send feature’ and an SOS button.

But the Uber Files revealed that one of Uber’s communication managers, Benjamin Novick, wrote an email about how the new feature should not be called a ‘panic button’ but an ‘SOS’ feature instead.