Foreign Universities in India: Trends and Challenges

India is the world’s largest source of international students. According to a NITI Aayog report, the number of students India sent abroad rose to 13.36 lakh by 2024 – and for every one international student who comes to India, nearly 28 Indian students go abroad. That staggering imbalance tells a story: for decades, accessing a globally recognised degree meant leaving the country. Today, that story is being rewritten. Foreign educational institutions are establishing a visible presence on Indian soil, operating through models ranging from franchises to full branch campuses. But their arrival comes with a set of complex questions – about quality, affordability, regulation, and equity – that deserve a clear-eyed analysis.

How foreign institutions enter India: the main models
Franchise arrangements
Twinning programmes
Distance and online education
Courses offered: where the foreign demand is concentrated
Business and management
Technology and engineering
Medical and health sciences
Cost and accessibility: the affordability gap
Regulatory challenges: the legal and accreditation maze
A fragmented framework
Accreditation and quality assurance gaps
The problem of rogue providers
Where does this leave Indian higher education?

How foreign institutions enter India: the main models

Foreign educational presence in India does not follow a single template. It takes multiple forms, each with its own structure, advantages, and risks. Understanding these models is the starting point for any serious discussion on the subject.

Franchise arrangements

In a franchise arrangement, a foreign university partners with a local Indian institution, which delivers the curriculum and services on behalf of the foreign partner. EducationWorld notes that over 130 foreign higher education providers had already planted their flags on Indian soil through collaboration agreements with domestic institutions well before formal regulatory frameworks were in place. These agreements span seven types of arrangements, with franchising being among the most common.

The appeal of this model for foreign universities is obvious – it allows them to tap into a vast student base without bearing the cost of establishing an independent campus. However, it raises legitimate concerns about quality and consistency. The curriculum and standards are those of the foreign institution, but the delivery is managed locally, often with limited oversight. A legal analysis by Khaitan & Co highlights that the UGC has explicitly flagged unrecognised collaborations between Indian and foreign institutions, particularly those that facilitate franchise-style degree issuance without formal approval. Degrees earned through franchise arrangements, notably, are not granted equivalence under the latest UGC regulations.

Twinning programmes

Twinning programmes represent a more structured collaboration. In a typical arrangement, students complete part of their degree at an Indian institution and the remaining part at the foreign partner university abroad – the popular “2+2” format being a common example. Early instances in India included the Ohio Manipal School of Business in Bangalore, the Tasmac-University of Wales partnership, and the Welingkar Institute of Management’s tie-up with Temple University in Mumbai.

Twinning programmes hold genuine value – they offer students exposure to international academic environments while keeping costs lower than studying entirely abroad. But they come with practical hurdles. Research published through Shodhganga points out that students enrolled in twinning programmes have, in some cases, been unable to obtain visas to complete their studies at the foreign partner’s campus, leaving degrees incomplete. Issues of curriculum alignment and credit transfer also remain unresolved in many cases.

Critically, EducationWorld observed that twinning programmes enabled the de facto entry of foreign education providers quite independently of WTO accords or GATS, and that the degrees awarded under such arrangements are not approved by the UGC, AICTE, or NAAC – a regulatory grey area that persists to this day.

Distance and online education

Cross-border delivery through distance education – using print, television, computer, or internet-based modes – represents what the WTO classifies as Mode 1 trade in services under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Several foreign institutions have used this route to enrol Indian students without any physical presence in the country. While it lowers both the cost and barrier of access significantly, it also operates in a largely unregulated space. The UGC’s 2023 regulations for foreign branch campuses apply specifically to offline, in-person instruction – meaning distance and online programmes offered by foreign institutions remain outside the ambit of these regulations for the purpose of degree equivalence.

Courses offered: where the foreign demand is concentrated

The courses offered by foreign institutions in India are not spread evenly across disciplines. Business, technology, and – to a lesser extent – medical and health sciences dominate the landscape, reflecting both global demand and the commercial calculus of foreign providers.

Business and management

MBA programmes and business management courses are among the most sought-after offerings from foreign institutions in India. These programmes promise global perspectives, international industry networks, and curriculum aligned with contemporary management practice. Dual-degree MBA arrangements, where students earn credentials from both an Indian and a foreign university simultaneously, have become particularly popular. Foreign business schools are perceived as offering superior employability outcomes, especially in multinational companies and global markets.

Technology and engineering

India’s Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan announced that 15 foreign universities setting up campuses in the current academic year are primarily focusing on STEM fields. This is consistent with India’s massive domestic demand for technology education – the country already has the world’s largest higher education-age cohort (18-23 years) – and with the fact that the NITI Aayog report attributes significant outbound migration to the inadequacy of world-class research and technology infrastructure in domestic institutions. Foreign providers see this gap as an opportunity.

Medical and health sciences

Medical education represents a more contested space. Foreign universities and institutions have, historically, tried to market medical seats to Indian students, with representatives visiting India to promote a percentage of seats in their programmes. However, medical education in India is tightly regulated by the National Medical Commission, and foreign degrees in medicine face significant barriers to recognition for clinical practice within the country. This limits the practical appeal of such programmes for students who intend to practise in India.

Cost and accessibility: the affordability gap

One of the most significant concerns surrounding foreign educational presence in India is cost. The promise of international education on Indian soil sounds democratising in theory, but the fee structures often tell a different story.

As analysts at Vajiramandravi note, the cost of foreign university education, even when offered within India, may still exceed what an average Indian household can afford. This concern is not merely speculative – universities pricing their programmes in GBP or USD face currency risk as the rupee depreciates, and they may pass these costs on to students.

Local teacher and student organisations have voiced strong resistance to foreign campuses on exactly these grounds. Legal commentary on the UGC regulations notes that there is substantial concern that the decision will not only make education more expensive but will come at the cost of social justice – making elite international credentials accessible only to those who can already afford them.

The irony is pointed: while foreign presence theoretically reduces the cost of studying abroad, it may simply replace one unaffordable option with another, slightly cheaper but still inaccessible one. Drishti IAS flags the concern that unless foreign campuses are mandated to offer scholarships and affirmative inclusion measures for students from socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds, their impact on widening access will remain minimal.

On the other side of the equation, the presence of foreign providers does lower the barrier to accessing an international qualification in a different sense – students no longer need to fund travel, overseas accommodation, and living expenses abroad. Conservative projections suggest that if even 20% of India’s current education-related foreign exchange outflow of $70 billion is retained through local foreign campuses, it could represent a significant macroeconomic saving for the country by 2040. For middle-class families, a local foreign degree – even at a premium – may represent a genuinely more accessible option than full overseas study.

Regulatory challenges: the legal and accreditation maze

Perhaps the most complex dimension of foreign educational presence in India is the regulatory landscape – or more accurately, the lack of a coherent, unified one.

A fragmented framework

Until the UGC (Setting up and Operation of Campuses of Foreign Higher Educational Institutions in India) Regulations, 2023 were notified, India had no clear, unified legal mechanism for foreign universities to operate independently on Indian soil. It is worth noting that India did not schedule education services in its WTO commitments, either in the Uruguay Round or in its Doha Round submissions, meaning it has no multilateral obligation under GATS to open higher education to foreign participation. Whatever liberalisation has happened – including allowing 100% FDI in education and permitting twinning, franchising, and collaboration – has been autonomously driven by domestic policy choices.

The UGC’s 2023 regulations now provide a formal pathway, but they operate alongside the IFSCA regulations of 2022 (which govern campuses in the GIFT City special economic zone) and the UGC’s Academic Collaboration Regulations of 2022 (which cover twinning, joint, and dual degree arrangements). Legal experts observe that this multi-layer regulatory framework, with no single body overseeing all forms of collaboration or investment, creates significant compliance uncertainty for foreign institutions.

Accreditation and quality assurance gaps

Before the 2023 UGC regulations, twinning and franchise programmes operated in a deep grey zone – their syllabuses and curricula were not approved by the UGC, AICTE, or NAAC. This meant that degrees awarded under these arrangements were not formally recognised for government employment, and there was no mechanism to assess whether the education being delivered met any domestic quality standard.

Under the 2023 regulations, all foreign universities seeking to establish campuses in India must submit their latest accreditation and quality assurance reports from a recognised body in their home country, and applications are reviewed by a Standing Committee that must make recommendations within 45 days. Only institutions ranked in the global top 500 – or with exceptional subject-specific expertise – are eligible to apply. This raises the quality floor significantly.

However, the regulations explicitly restrict foreign campuses to offline, in-person instruction only – ruling out online and distance programmes from receiving equivalent recognition. This creates a paradox: many of the foreign providers who have historically served Indian students through distance mode find themselves outside the regulatory framework, yet continue to operate and enrol students.

Analysts also point to additional operational hurdles beyond accreditation – land acquisition, compliance with India’s Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), taxation, labour laws, and infrastructure readiness in general (non-GIFT City) locations. These structural barriers mean that even willing and eligible foreign universities may face protracted delays before they can begin operations.

The problem of rogue providers

Research documented through Shodhganga raises a troubling dimension: a number of fake universities have been known to operate worldwide, including some offering doctoral degrees for as little as USD 500. Without a robust mechanism to verify the legitimacy of foreign providers, students in India – particularly those enrolling in distance or franchise programmes – remain vulnerable to such predatory actors. The lack of a comprehensive, publicly accessible registry of approved foreign providers has historically compounded this risk.

Where does this leave Indian higher education?

The presence of foreign educational institutions in India is neither uniformly beneficial nor straightforwardly harmful. It reflects a genuine demand – for better quality, global credentials, and research infrastructure – that domestic institutions have, so far, struggled to fully meet. India’s Gross Enrollment Ratio stands at just 27.3%, far below the 88.2% in the USA and 51.7% in China, and the National Education Policy 2020 has set a target of raising this to 50% by 2035 – a goal that cannot be achieved without significant expansion and innovation in capacity.

The UGC’s 2023 regulatory framework is a meaningful step toward bringing order to a space that has long operated in ambiguity. But the deeper challenges – affordability, equitable access, genuine quality assurance, and a coherent single-window regulatory architecture – remain works in progress. The experience of other countries, including China and Southeast Asia, where foreign branch campuses have faced mixed outcomes including closure due to low enrolments and financial unviability, offers a cautionary lesson: long-term success will depend on a supportive policy environment, fair pricing strategies, and the ability of foreign institutions to adapt to Indian realities without compromising on the academic standards that justify their presence in the first place.

What do you think? Should India prioritise making foreign campuses more affordable through mandated scholarships and fee caps, or should market forces determine who can access internationally branded education on Indian soil? And given the regulatory grey areas that have persisted for decades, can a framework built primarily around ranked institutions adequately address the quality concerns that arise from the hundreds of less-regulated franchise and twinning arrangements already operating across the country?

References

PDF 📄

Table of Contents

How foreign institutions enter India: the main models 🔗

Franchise arrangements 🔗

Twinning programmes 🔗

Distance and online education 🔗

Courses offered: where the foreign demand is concentrated 🔗

Business and management 🔗

Technology and engineering 🔗

Medical and health sciences 🔗

Cost and accessibility: the affordability gap 🔗

Regulatory challenges: the legal and accreditation maze 🔗

A fragmented framework 🔗

Accreditation and quality assurance gaps 🔗

The problem of rogue providers 🔗

Where does this leave Indian higher education? 🔗