Unlike Graeme Smith, I don’t have a problem with some Test series including UDRS, and others not. There’s nothing inherently unfair about that, as long as both teams head into a match know the rules and what to expect.
The underlying assumption — much disputed by the BCCI — is that the UDRS guarantees a higher quality of umpiring and cricket. I’m not sure, and Sambit Bal excellently summarizes the points against the current system: 1) HotSpot and Hawk-Eye/Virtual Eye are not fool-proof. 2) The two allotted reviews to each side isn’t ideal and 3) the system is skewed toward batsmen, who really don’t deserve any more help.
Remember these numbers: 89-32. The first is the number of unsuccessful reviews last year. One assumes that another layer of review is an automatic improvement, but that’s not always the case — so relax, and play the fates, as all good cricketers learn to do.
Ducking Beamers: A Cricket Blog 
It’s interesting that with all the flaws and non-uniform standards we’ve had more than a fourth of the decisions being overturned, but you only chose to highlight the number 89.
I don’t see how the system favours batsmen, if anything the bowler and keeper are in a better position to judge LBW calls than the batsman himself. As for edges, both sides almost always know when the batsman has nicked it. The number of reviews is a bit less in my opinion but it’s not the reason the BCCI or someone else is opposed to it.
Acc to ICC info, UDRS leads to 6% improvement in decision-making. Is it a ground enough to impoysse it on poorer boards to incur this extra expenditure? Btw, rumour is Hawk-Eye guys greased ICC palms to win their nod and BCCI is sulking.
Som — Thanks for the comment. Why would BCCI sulk if Hawk-Eye pallied around with ICC? What’s it to BCCI?