The Supreme Court has recently emphasized that public interest and government interest are not synonymous, and courts must ensure accountability, not overlook government negligence. A bench of Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan criticized the Karnataka High Court for allowing the state housing board to reopen a land dispute case against a private person after an 11-year delay, calling it a "mockery of justice". The Supreme Court has put all high courts on notice, asking them not to condone inordinate delays on the part of the government.

The Court rejected the argument that delay should be excused when public interest is involved. Instead, the court stated that public interest lies in compelling efficiency, responsibility, and timely decision-making, not in condoning governmental negligence. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that liberal condonation of delay on behalf of the state, merely on the ground that refusal might cause the dismissal of a potentially meritorious matter, is a misplaced proposition. Public interest is synonymous with the enforcement of the rule of law, certainty in legal rights, and an administrative machinery that functions with diligence and accountability.

The Supreme Court underscored that the guiding principle is not the protection of governmental indifference but the promotion of responsible governance. The state has a higher duty to act in time because it litigates as the trustee of the people's interest, not in its private capacity. Repeatedly condoning delays is not acceptable.

The concept of "public interest" is valid and embodies a fundamental principle that should guide the actions of public officials. It affects the good order and functioning of the community and government affairs for the wellbeing of citizens and has also been described as the benefit of society, the public, or the community as a whole. Acting in the public interest has two separate components which include objectives and outcomes, and process and procedure. Objectives and outcomes of the decision-making process are in the public interest, and the process adopted and procedures followed by decision-makers in exercising their discretionary powers are in the public interest. The process and procedure component includes complying with applicable law, carrying out functions fairly and impartially, complying with the principles of natural justice, acting reasonably, ensuring proper accountability and transparency and avoiding conflicts of interest.

The judiciary's role is to ensure claims of constitutional violation are only adjudicated when the claimant has suffered a cognizable injury. The Supreme Court has held that vindicating the public interest is the function of Congress and the Chief Executive. Courts should not have jurisdiction over issues that should be the subject of legislative discussion and decision.

Public interest standards in statutory delegations to agencies represent the hopes and fears of the U.S. administrative state. The public interest standard provides a vessel for agencies to infuse policymaking with the moral and ethical commitments of the community, but it also opens the door to the arbitrary exercise of tyrannical state power. Congress must supply an intelligible principle to guide the delegee's use of discretion.

The government must show that its speech regulation meets a substantial or important governmental interest. The substantial governmental interest test represents a governmental interest more than a legitimate interest but less than a compelling governmental interest.