Public Interest Litigation is the birth child of the Supreme Court of India, which armed the Judiciary to fulfill the objectives manifested in the Indian Constitution . The basic premise is rooted in the idea of making justice accessible to a common man. But the concept is not without its flaws. The debate about the nature of the doctrine of PIL has been debated for a very long time, the issues are complex and varied. The scope of PIL has broadened over time, through catena of judgments delivered by the Supreme Court in the last 50 years. The objective was to enhance and broaden the ambit of justice, so it can reach the poor and needy. While the idea in itself was succinct, and evidently led to a lot of progressive legislations and legal developments. Inadvertently, it also brought a myriad of issues. To allow for a full investigation of these problems, this article would not suffice. However, one aspect can be brought into focus which has been a pertinent issue when it comes to concept of PIL as a whole, whether it a legitimate exercise in form of Judicial Activism or Judicial Overreach? This article aims at viewing both the concepts through a critical lens to find out the distinction between the two, and whether the Apex Court is doing an optimal job of treading this thin line or not.