It is important to review the institutions and processes in the implementation of the SBM-R programme because it influences how the choices will be potentially made by an individual in determining their sanitation well-being. The Sanitation Well-being Framework (SWF) provides a wider informational base to judge the situation of sanitation emerging as an actual reality after the implementation has taken place. The analysis finds that slippage in sanitation manifests an injustice due to the unjust circumstances that emerge during programme implementation, technology diffusion and neglect of social hierarchies by the agencies involved and their treatment to the lower level of fellow officials and the community they engaged with while meeting the objectives of the SBM-R programme. The formation of institutions and distribution of resources involved under the programme are oblivious to actual, social as well as institutional realisations since the implementation is done at the expense of those who are already marginalised, that is, women, fellow officials and community members belonging to the lower caste community. Table 1 sums up the potential capability constraints and expansion factors grouped as the personal, cultural, environmental, structural and service capability factors along with their corresponding influence on the sanitation life cycle stages. For instance, personal factors such as habit and preference for deeper pits, identified by the officials, constrain the accepting ability of an individual to construct and use toilets. A cultural factor such as associating women's honour with the construction of toilets promotes the usage of toilets that is gendered in nature. Officials’ refusal to identify caste-based influences that forge the linkage between pollution and pit emptying affects the construction and usage stage of the sanitation life cycle. At the structural level, although the incentive provision and community participation in toilet construction are enabling factors, they are overridden by constraints such as coercive practices in forcing people to use toilets and a lack of compensation to poor people when they spearhead the CLTS activities. It leads to the forceful acceptance and construction of toilets, but utilisation is not ensured. Another illustration is from the environmental factors, where officials put an exclusive burden on the rural population for creating filth, forcing them to accept and construct the toilet, but its usage cannot be guaranteed. Also, under the service factors, even though there are enabling factors as identified by the officials – such as twin-pit technology being a panacea to all problems and retrofitting to aid the maintenance of toilets – these are overridden by factors such as a lack of awareness-building among people with the usage of twin-pit technology, coupled with an unfair expectation that rural communities should deploy sustainable means of safe disposal that involve manual pit emptying when the human waste decomposes. These factors affect the construction, utilisation and safe disposal stages. The lack of skilled labour to provide a service, if the toilet demands maintenance, in the long run, affects the maintenance and utilisation stages.