Vicarious liability, a doctrine rooted in the Latin maxim respondeat superior, holds one party liable for the wrongful acts of another. This study asks how far a doctrine built for master–servant relations can be applied to employers, employees and independent contractors in the modern workplace, and whether Indian law gives a coherent answer to that question. The research is doctrinal. It traces the tests for the employment relationship, from the control test to the multiple factor test and the “akin to employment” standard. It explains the two-stage test of the UK Supreme Court (a relevant relationship, then a close connection between the wrong and the role) through Lister, Christian Brothers, Mohamud, Cox, Morrison, Barclays and BXB. It examines the exceptions to the rule that a principal is not liable for an independent contractor, namely non-delegable duties and negligent selection. It then studies Indian authority on State liability (Article 300, Vidhyawati, Kasturilal), hired vehicles, banks and company directors, and assesses the barriers, the progress made and the policy position in light of the Labour Codes now in force. The main finding is that India has no single statute on vicarious liability. Courts rely on the control test and on English authority, the criminal law sets a high threshold for liability of directors, and the new Codes on Social Security and Industrial Relations deal with welfare and status but leave tortious liability for platform work unresolved. The UK cases show that a genuine independent contractor stays outside the doctrine, while integration into the principal’s business can bring a worker within it. The study concludes that the doctrine remains essential for holding employers accountable, but its application needs a clearer statutory frame. It ends with reform proposals.