By Monika Srivastava & Shivangi Mishra
NITI Aayog’s recent paper on internationalisation of higher education contains several ambitious ideas. Perhaps the most interesting, from a commercial perspective, is its endorsement of a “campus-within-campus” model for foreign universities. Although this may sound like a transitional policy tool, it has the potential to redefine India’s higher education landscape over the next few years. In this article, we talk about what this model enables, how it interplays with the existing legal framework and why it is timely change.
In 2023, India formally opened its doors to foreign universities who want to set up full-fledged independent campuses – the relevant regulations being the University Grants Commission (Setting up and Operation of Campuses of Foreign Higher Educational Institutions in India) Regulations 2023 (Foreign University Regime). In the two years since, the response has been encouraging, with more than a dozen international universities announcing or launching India campuses, and several others actively evaluating entry. Philosophically speaking, the campus-within-campus model could be an extension of the Foreign University Regime and only makes it more workable in practice.
India is not short on academic demand or policy ambition, but in so far as our top-tier most sought after cities are concerned, it is short on real estate. Capacity saturation and high prices in tier one cities make it harder for foreign universities, not to mention local complexities and long delays in acquisition of land. The campus-within-campus model open a new window – it gives foreign universities the ability to calibrate their India presence without having to navigate real estate acquisition and development challenges from day one.
At its core, the campus-within-campus model allows a foreign university to operate from within the physical infrastructure of an Indian university with a sunset period, rather than setting up a standalone greenfield campus upfront. The sunset clause signals regulatory intent, i.e., this model is a stepping-stone and not the state of being.
Why this works for foreign universities, particularly, the UK?
Many UK universities are currently grappling with sustained cash-flow pressures, declining domestic enrolments and tightening public funding. At the same time, as part of its recently announced international strategy for higher education, UK has doubled down on exports and transnational education as a strategic priority. Given this context, particularly for UK universities, a campus-within-campus model would be a compelling opportunity arriving at a time when it matters.
A campus-within-campus structure offers something that full-fledged campuses do not i.e. a capital-light, brownfield entry option with downside protection built in. Instead of committing million upfront for land acquisition, construction, and long-gestation regulatory approvals, a foreign university can pilot programmes in India using existing infrastructure, while also testing student demand, price sensitivity and employability outcomes, and then devise an India strategy that is informed by this early experience.
Importantly, it also allows institutions to manage risk in a phased manner – academic first, capital later. In an environment where university balance sheets are under stress, this flexibility is especially attractive, and in some ways, necessary.
What this means for Indian universities and why they stand to gain?
The benefits are not one-sided. For Indian universities, hosting a foreign institution on campus will mean more than brand association.
First, co-location with a credible international university can significantly accelerate global visibility and academic positioning, often far more effectively than traditional overseas MoUs or short-term exchange programmes. Importantly, it also gives practical shape to the joint venture concept already contemplated under the Foreign University Regime, by allowing Indian and foreign institutions to move beyond paper partnerships into operational on-campus collaborations. In doing so, the campus-within-campus model makes these joint venture structures easier to test before both partners are ready to scale.
Second, it introduces competitive pressure of the right kind. When students have access to international curricula within the same campus, Indian institutions are incentivised to upgrade pedagogy, governance frameworks and student services – driven by proximity and market expectations rather than regulatory mandate. Over time, this form of competition is likely to be more effective in raising quality standards at education institutions than compliance-led regulation alone.
Third, the model enables flexible and commercially innovative arrangements, including shared infrastructure, revenue-linked programme structures, faculty collaboration models and, where regulations permit, co-branded academic offerings. Importantly, these structures also allow institutions to unlock new revenue streams without large amounts of capital expenditure.
A globally and locally tested model
Internationally, variations of this model have worked well in land-constrained or high-density markets – from shared academic zones in parts of East Asia to embedded foreign colleges within public universities in Europe – and in India’s context, land scarcity and rising construction and financing costs, only makes it more suitable.
Another important aspect of the model is what it offers regulators. The model effectively functions as a regulatory sandbox for higher education internationalisation – a policy technique India is already familiar with and has successfully deployed in other complex and high-risk sectors. In sectors with higher regulatory risk, India has moved towards gradual market opening, testing what works before scaling up. In fintech and insurance, for example, regulatory sandboxes allowed live testing of new products, delivery models and consumer interfaces under defined safeguards before wider market adoption. Similarly, the gradual opening of the space sector enabled private participation in supervised, limited roles before deeper commercial liberalisation.
The campus-within-campus model mirrors this logic in many ways – rather than approving large, capital-intensive foreign university campuses upfront with irreversible consequences if things go wrong, regulators get a live operating environment to observe and evaluate real-world outcomes across several parameters such as academic standards, student protection and governance frameworks.
From a regulatory perspective, this reduces downside risk. From a market perspective, it improves predictability. For foreign universities, especially those operating under financial stress, regulatory uncertainty is often a bigger deterrent than market demand. A sandbox-style entry mechanism provides clarity on what is actually permissible in practice, not just on paper. And lastly, for Indian universities and investors, it creates a price-discovery and governance-discovery phase. Commercial terms, cost structures, and student appetite can be tested and refined before long-term commitments are locked in.
Looking Ahead
The real impact of the campus-within-campus model will lie in how it reshapes foreign university entry into India. If implemented, we are likely to see more brownfield collaborations, with institutions starting small, learning the market, and scaling only where the fundamentals add up. It should broaden participation by UK, Australian and European universities that have so far been interested in India but cautious about deploying capital upfront.
Lastly, the model has the potential to normalise the presence of foreign universities in India, not as one-off regulatory experiments, but as participants in a more competitive and integrated higher education ecosystem.
Seen together with the Foreign University Regime, the campus-within-campus model makes a compelling case for foreign universities to look towards India. It broadens the entry options – offering a pathway both for universities willing to commit capital upfront and for those desiring a capital-light presence before scaling. As such, introducing the campus-within-campus model may appear to be an incremental reform on paper, but its impact could be far more consequential and meaningful in practice.
The article has been authored by Monika Srivastava, Partner and Shivangi Mishra, Associate at Khaitan & Co.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are solely of the author and ETEDUCATION does not necessarily subscribe to it. ETEDUCATION will not be responsible for any damage caused to any person or organisation directly or indirectly.
