An Uber executive who reportedly obtained the medical records of a Delhi woman who was sexually assaulted by one of the company’s drivers would have had no legal reason to access the documents during the investigation or trial, according to the police officer who oversaw the case.

Indian lawyers said Eric Alexander, the former president of Uber’s Asia-Pacific division, could have applied for access to the woman’s medical records after the verdict was delivered in 2015, but receiving permission would have been “highly unlikely” and strongly opposed by police.

Questions are being asked about how Alexander could have gained access to the medical records of the woman, after the technology news website Recode reported on Wednesday that he had shared the sensitive information with senior staff including Uber’s chief executive, Travis Kalanick.

Alexander reportedly gained access to, and shared the records on the suspicion that the case might have been fabricated by one of Uber’s rivals in the Indian market, the Bangalore-based ridesharing service Ola.

After reporters from Recode began investigating the allegations, Uber announced that Alexander no longer worked for the company. It is unclear when he came into possession of the medical records, or how he did so.

Madhur Verma, a senior Delhi police official who was in charge of investigating the December 2014 sexual assault, told the Guardian he “cannot understand” how Alexander could have obtained the medical records.

“He was a witness in this case, but his deposition had nothing to do with the medical legal report,” he said. “His deposition was about the route taken by the taxi driver, about the driver and how he was recruited.

“So he was not required to have access [to the medical records]. There is no reason for it,” he said.

Verma said it would have been inappropriate for the company to gain possession of the “very private and sensitive” documents.

“It is not a right practice for [Uber’s] private investigation to use government records which the law does not permit that they should have,” he said.

He said that police would have strongly opposed any legal application by Uber to access the medical records. “Had they applied for permission, police would never have given it.”

The Uber driver, Shiv Kumar Yadav, was convicted in 2015 of sexually assaulting the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons.

Yadav’s arrest, and the revelation that he had previously been accused of multiple sexual assaults, sparked outrage about Uber’s security procedures and saw the app service briefly banned in the Indian capital.

Apar Gupta, a supreme court advocate who specialises in privacy cases, said access to the medical examination records of rape victims was tightly restricted by Indian law.



“Such records are the custody of the court and especially in rape trials, there is an implicit assumption that they are in camera [closed to the public],” he said. “They aren’t open to the public or third parties, they’re a matter for the accused, the court and the investigating authority. Except for the lawyers who have a very defined relationship under law, there is no scope for a third party.”

India’s Right to Information Act, which permits citizens to apply to access public records, includes strict privacy exemptions. “If anything falls within the zone of privacy it would be a rape survivor’s medical records,” said Menaka Guruswamy, another supreme court lawyer.

She said no specific law prevents medical records from being released after the conclusion of a trial, but that Alexander would have had to apply to the court for access.

“[Getting permission] would have been deeply unlikely, on the basis of jurisprudence as has been involved in the context of rape trials, and the difference in status that we accord a rape survivor,” she said.

Gupta agreed: “They could have applied, and a judge could have said, yes, there are certain circumstances that you are disclosing that make it necessary for me to provide you a copy of the medical report,” he said. “But it’s a remote possibility.”

Uber declined to answer when asked by the Guardian whether any such formal request had been made.

Instead it shared a statement from the president of the company’s Indian division, Amit Jain. “The 2014 crime in Delhi was absolutely horrific and something no one should ever go through,” it said.

“Uber responded by working closely with law enforcement and the prosecution to support their investigation and see the perpetrator brought to justice.

“We have taken significant steps to improve our safety processes and policies in recent years to ensure the safety of everyone who uses the app.”

On Monday, Uber fired more than 20 employees after a company investigation into sexual harassment claims and workplace culture.

The sackings follow an investigation carried out by the law firm Perkins Coie after allegations of sexual harassment were made by Susan Fowler, a former Uber engineer who published an account of sexual harassment and discrimination at the company which went viral.

Uber has been under pressure to change its company culture following a series of scandals that appeared to demonstrate aggressive business practices and a toxic work environment.