The primary concern associated with Judicial Activism is the potential for the Judiciary to excessively interfere in the domains of the Executive and Legislature, going against the principle of separation of powers and the spirit of the Constitution.

The primary concern associated with Judicial Activism is interference in the domains of the Executive and Legislature. Judicial activism refers to the tendency of judges to interpret laws and the Constitution in a way that promotes their own personal beliefs and values, rather than strictly adhering to the original intent of the law or the Constitution. This can lead to judges making decisions that go beyond their proper role as interpreters of the law and encroach upon the powers of the other two branches of government.

Interference in the domains of the Executive and Legislature
One of the main concerns with judicial activism is that it can undermine the separation of powers and the checks and balances that are fundamental to a democratic system of government. The Executive branch is responsible for implementing and enforcing laws, while the Legislature is responsible for making laws. When judges engage in activism, they can make decisions that effectively rewrite or invalidate laws passed by the Legislature or executive actions taken by the Executive. This can lead to a situation where the judiciary is effectively legislating from the bench, which is not its intended role.

Weakening the independence of the Judiciary
Another concern is that judicial activism can weaken the independence of the judiciary. The judiciary is meant to be an independent and impartial branch of government, tasked with upholding the rule of law. When judges engage in activism, it can give the impression that they are acting based on their personal biases and preferences, rather than on the basis of the law. This can undermine public confidence in the judiciary and erode its independence.

Undermining the principle of judicial review
Judicial activism can also undermine the principle of judicial review, which is the power of the judiciary to review the constitutionality of laws and executive actions. Judicial review is an important aspect of the separation of powers and serves as a check on the other branches of government. However, when judges engage in activism, they can use the power of judicial review to strike down laws or executive actions based on their own personal beliefs, rather than on a genuine constitutional violation. This can lead to the erosion of the principle of judicial review and undermine the balance of power between the branches of government.

In conclusion, the primary concern associated with judicial activism is interference in the domains of the Executive and Legislature. This can lead to the undermining of the separation of powers, the weakening of the independence of the judiciary, and the erosion of the principle of judicial review. It is important for judges to exercise restraint and adhere to the proper role of interpreting the law, rather than engaging in activism that encroaches upon the powers of the other branches of government.