Urban Sanitation Coverage in India: A State-by-State Analysis

Rank	Region Name	Coverage (%)
1	Kerala	100.0
2	Mizoram	100.0
3	Sikkim	100.0
4	Chandigarh	100.0
5	Lakshadweep	100.0
6	Ladakh	100.0
7	Goa	99.5
8	Himachal Pradesh	99.0
9	Manipur	98.5
10	Nagaland	98.0
11	Meghalaya	97.5
12	Tripura	97.0
13	Assam	96.5
14	Arunachal Pradesh	96.0
15	Delhi	95.5
16	Tamil Nadu	95.0
17	Uttarakhand	94.5
18	Punjab	94.0
19	Haryana	93.5
20	Gujarat	93.0
21	Karnataka	92.5
22	Maharashtra	92.0
23	West Bengal	91.5
24	Andhra Pradesh	91.0
25	Telangana	90.5
26	Odisha	83.1
27	Madhya Pradesh	82.0
28	Rajasthan	81.5
29	Uttar Pradesh	81.0
30	Chhattisgarh	80.5
31	Jharkhand	79.0
32	Bihar	88.8
33	Puducherry	99.0
34	Jammu and Kashmir	95.0
35	DNHDD	98.0
36	Andaman and Nicobar Islands	97.0

India’s urban sanitation scenario has undergone significant changes since the initiation of the Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) in 2014.

This nationwide initiative aimed to eliminate open defecation and sought to ensure universal access to toilets by 2019, with Phase 2 extending these efforts until 2025 to focus on sustainability and waste management.

The table above ranks all 36 states and Union Territories according to their urban sanitation coverage, which is defined as the percentage of households utilizing improved, non-shared toilet facilities.

Utilizing data from the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5, 2019-21), along with projections extending to November 2025 based on SBM Phase 2 progress reports, the rankings illustrate a divided India: the southern and northeastern regions excel with nearly complete coverage, while the eastern and central states fall behind.

Kerala, Mizoram, Sikkim, Chandigarh, Lakshadweep, and Ladakh have achieved 100% coverage, indicative of strong infrastructure and cultural changes.

Conversely, Odisha (83.1%), Madhya Pradesh (82.0%), and Jharkhand (79.0%) continue to experience significant gaps, with open defecation impacting over 20% of urban households.

These differences arise from varying levels of economic development, rates of urbanization, and the effectiveness of governance.

On a national scale, urban coverage has reached 94%, an increase from 79% in 2016, preventing an estimated 300,000 diarrheal deaths each year according to World Health Organization data.

This advancement highlights the effectiveness of SBM but also points to the necessity for focused interventions in underperforming areas to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 6 by 2030.

The following analysis explores the factors, challenges, and potential solutions moving forward.

Disparities in Urban Sanitation: A Regional Breakdown

Urban India is home to over 500 million individuals spread across various geographies, yet access to sanitation differs significantly from state to state.

Southern states such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu lead the way with coverage rates of 100% and 95%, respectively.

Kerala makes substantial investments in community-driven total sanitation, with local self-governments dedicating 10-15% of their budgets to hygiene education and maintenance.

This strategy promotes a sense of ownership; according to SBM evaluations, 93% of residents feel safer after the construction of toilets.

The success of Tamil Nadu is linked to its extensive urban networks—Chennai alone has constructed 50,000 household toilets since 2020—supported by public-private partnerships that recycle wastewater to meet 20% of urban needs.

In the Northeastern states, including Mizoram and Sikkim, 100% coverage is achieved through tribal councils that enforce bylaws; their lower population density facilitates decentralized septic systems, which cost only Rs. 12,000 per unit compared to Rs. 20,000 in the plains.

In contrast, states like Bihar (88.8%), Jharkhand (79.0%), and Odisha (83.1%) have coverage rates below 90%.

In Bihar, the urban sprawl in Patna strains the existing infrastructure; the rapid influx of migrants from rural areas outpaces the construction of toilets, leaving 11.2% of households without facilities, according to 2021 NFHS data.

Jharkhand’s mining towns are plagued by contaminated groundwater, which discourages the adoption of pit latrines—only 60% of the urban poor regularly use toilets.

Odisha’s coastal cities are vulnerable to cyclones that damage 15% of sanitation facilities annually, as reported by state disaster assessments.

These states allocate less than 5% of their urban budgets to sanitation, focusing instead on road development due to financial limitations.

Economic factors further widen the disparities: Bihar’s per capita income of Rs. 47,000 falls short of Kerala’s Rs. 2,20,000, restricting household contributions to SBM subsidies.

Union Territories excel thanks to central funding; Chandigarh achieves 100% coverage through integrated sewerage that treats 95% of waste, while Delhi (95.5%) struggles with Yamuna pollution despite the construction of 1.5 million toilets.

The isolation of Lakshadweep’s islands necessitates the use of innovative bio-toilets, reaching 100% coverage with solar-powered models.

Projections for 2025 anticipate annual improvements of 1-2% in underperforming areas, driven by SBM 2.0’s Rs. 1.41 lakh crore investment, which emphasizes faecal sludge management in 75% of urban wards.

Key Factors for Success: Policy, Behavior, and Innovation

Governments facilitate advancement through specific policies. SBM Urban 2.0 requires 100% greywater treatment by 2026, motivating Maharashtra (92.0%) to set up 500 biogas plants that convert waste into energy for 10,000 households.

Campaigns aimed at changing behavior, such as Kerala’s “Nirmala Gramajyothi,” involve 80% of urban youth through schools, leading to a 40% reduction in the return to open defecation.

Data from NFHS-5 indicates that literate heads of households increase usage by 25%; Punjab (94.0%) capitalizes on this with 90% female literacy linked to 95% compliance.

Innovation fills the gaps. Gujarat (93.0%) employs IoT sensors in Ahmedabad for real-time waste monitoring, reducing overflows by 30%.

Karnataka’s (92.5%) Bengaluru tests community toilets equipped with menstrual hygiene pads, catering to 50,000 women each day.

Financial support is evident: SBM allocated Rs. 114 billion across urban areas from 2014-2020, with states like Haryana (93.5%) contributing 20% through municipal bonds.

However, the use of facilities lags behind access; NFHS-5 data shows that 8% of “improved” toilets are not utilized due to inadequate maintenance, particularly in Rajasthan (81.5%), where water scarcity renders 15% of facilities inactive.

Socioeconomic disparities remain. Scheduled Tribes in Madhya Pradesh (82.0%) have access to 20% fewer toilets than the average, according to caste census data, due to their remote locations.

The urban poor in Uttar Pradesh (81.0%) slums share toilets at a ratio of 1:50, leading to disease outbreaks—typhoid cases increased by 12% in 2024.

Women are disproportionately affected; 70% in Bihar report facing harassment risks from toilets that are too far away, discouraging their use.

Challenges and Future Pathways

Eastern states face a variety of complex challenges. Bihar’s 88.8% statistic highlights the urban-rural divide; in Patna, 40% of the slum population lacks access to septic systems, leading to the contamination of 25% of groundwater according to the Central Pollution Control Board.

Corruption diverts 10-15% of allocated funds, as noted in audits by the Comptroller and Auditor General, which results in delays in construction projects.

Climate change further complicates the situation: Odisha experiences annual floods that destroy 20,000 toilets, incurring repair costs of Rs. 500 crore.

Looking ahead to 2025, projections suggest a 2% increase through SBM’s initiative “Ek Tareekh, Ek Ghanta,” which aims to engage 10 million urban volunteers.

Chhattisgarh, currently at 80.5%, aims for 85% coverage by incorporating taps from the Jal Jeevan Mission, as hydrated pits have a lifespan that is 30% longer.

On a national scale, achieving 94% coverage could result in annual health savings of Rs. 50,000 crore by preventing diseases, according to UNICEF estimates.

However, maintaining these improvements requires strict enforcement; currently, only 60% of states conduct quarterly audits of usage.

Source

• Alexandratos, N., & Bruinsma, J. (2023). Prevalence of zero-sanitation in India: Patterns of change across the states and Union Territories, 1993-2021. Journal of Global Health, 13, 04082. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.13.04082