This study analyzes the application of the business judgment rule doctrine in the Supreme Court Decision Number 121K/PID.SUS/2020 in order to review the norms, legal considerations, and application of the business judgment rule doctrine in Indonesian law through the Supreme Court Decision Number 121K/PID.SUS/2022. This research is structured in normative empiric or judicial case study, especially on the legal norms of Article 97 Paragraph (5) of the Company Law, and analyzes the implementation of the business judgment rule doctrine in the Supreme Court Decision Number 121K/Pid.sus/2020. Qualitative analysis based on expert opinion, doctrine, and legal theory using deductive analyze method. The results of the research and analysis obtained are the criteria for implementing the business judgment rule based on 4 (four) cumulative criteria, namely the readiness of the Board of Directors/well informed before making a decision, the decision is taken in good faith, there is no conflict of interest in the decision. business decisions, and the Director has taken action to prevent losses from continuing. The Panel of Judges in the Supreme Court Decision Number 121K/PID.SUS/2020 did not consider the criteria for "readiness of information" and "the criteria for taking action to prevent continued losses" which are the essential criteria of the business judgment rule but only considered PT Pertamina has an asset impairment, PT Pertamina Hulu Energi is a subsidiary of a state-owned Enterprise, the Defendant (incasu Karen Agustiawan) has obtained permission from the Board of Commissioners, and the business decision does not contain elements of fraud, conflict of interest, unlawful acts and intentional errors so that these considerations create ambiguity and potential new legal disputes. because formally and materially, the actions of the Defendant (incasu Karen Agustiawan) have fulfilled all elements of the business judgment rule in Article 97 paragraph (5) of the Company Law, although the legal considerations of the Panel of Judges are incomplete, the business judgment rule can still be applied in the Supreme Court Decision Number 121K/PID.SUS/2020 / Penelitian ini mengkaji penerapan doktrin business judgment rule dalam Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 121K/PID.SUS/2020 dengan tujuan mengkaji kriteria, pertimbangan hukum dan penerapan doktrin business judgment rule dalam hukum Indonesia melalui Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 121K/PID.SUS/2022. Penelitian ini disusun dalam penelitian hukum normatif empiris atau judicial case study terutama pada norma hukum Pasal 97 Ayat (5) UUPT dan menganalisis implementasi doktrin BJR dalam Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 121K/Pid.sus/2020, Teknik analisa yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah analisa data secara analisa Kualitatif yang bertumpu pada pendapat ahli, doktrin, dan teori hukum dengan metode deduktif. Hasil penelitian dan analisis yang diperoleh adalah kriteria penerapan business judgment rule bertumpu pada 4 (empat) kriteria yang bersifat kulmulatif yakni kesiapan informasi Direksi (well informed) sebelum mengambil keputusan, keputusan tersebut diambil dengan iktikad baik (good faith), tidak adanya konflik kepentingan dalam keputusan bisnis (no conflict of interest), dan Direktur telah mengambil tindakan untuk mencegah kerugian agar tidak berlanjut (preventive action). Majelis Hakim dalam Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 121K/PID.SUS/2020 tidak mempertimbangkan kriteria “kesiapan informasi” dan “kriteria telah mengambil tindakan untuk mencegah kerugian berlanjut” yang menjadi kriteria pokok business judgment rule melainkan hanya mempertimbangkan PT Pertamina merupakan penurunan nilai asset (impairment), PT Pertamina Hulu Energi merupakan anak Perusahaan BUMN, Terdakwa (incasu Karen Agustiawan telah mendapatkan izin Dewan Komisaris, dan Keputusan tersebut tidak mengandung unsur kecurangan, benturan kepentingan perbuatan melawan hukum dan kesalahan yang disengaja sehingga pertimbangan tersebut menimbulkan ambiguitas dan potensi sengketa hukum yang baru dikarenakan secara formil dan materiil, tindakan Terdakwa (incasu Karen Agustiawan) telah memenuhi seluruh unsur business judgment rule dalam pasal 97 ayat (5) UUPT, walaupun pertimbangan hukum Majelis Hakim yang tidak lengkap ini menimbulkan ambiguitas, business judgment rule tetap dapat diterapkan dalam Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 121K/PID.SUS/2020.