[1][3] In a report in Times of India, Manjari Mishra and V N Arora accused Rambhadracharya of committing a "blasphemous act of challenging the mighty pen of the Goswami".

Nritya Gopal Das, president of Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, was quoted by Times of India as saying, "How dare he ... he has committed an pardonable [sic] sin and must own it up".

[15][16] The dispute subsided on 8 November 2009, when Rambhadracharya sent a letter to the Akhara Parishad, expressing regret over any annoyance or pain caused by the publication of the Tulsi Peeth edition.

[4] A writ petition filed in 2008 by Shiv Asray Asthana, publisher of the journal Prakhar Vichar, seeking the seizure and forfeiture of Rambhadracharya's critical edition on the grounds that it hurt religious sentiments, was dismissed by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in May 2011.

[1] Ram Sagar Shukla, a retired correspondent of Prasar Bharti, wrote that "most of the corrections" in the Tulsi Peeth edition pertain to the language of the epic, while some relate to several episodes.Shukla doubts the swami Rambhadracharya's opinion on the definition of Chaupai, saying that according to Pingala's definition a Chaupai has 64 instants, and that the title Hanuman Chalisa could also mean 40 half-Chaupais.

Sunita Shastri, a scholar on Ramcharitmanas and advisor to Gita Press, told the Times of India that she examined the book for two hours and found "several verses missing " in the Ayodhyakand from the Tulsi Peeth edition.

Ravindra Agnihotri, author in Sanskrit, Hindi and English, wrote that Rambahdracharya pointed to "more than 3000 mistakes in contemporary prevalent editions" including addition of verses and change of words, and added that the Akhil Bharatiya Akhada Parishad and Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas should have praised his work instead of criticising him.