Legal Rationality in Supreme Court Decisions on Marriage Annulment Due to Apostasy

This study aims to analyze the legal rationality of the Supreme Court Decision No. 724K/AG/2012 concerning a divorce petition filed by the Petitioner at the first instance on the grounds that the Respondent had apostatized (left Islam). The Religious Court decided the case through talak raj’i (revocable divorce), while the Religious High Court, at the appellate level, annulled the marriage (fasakh). However, at the cassation level, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the decision of the Religious Court by declaring a talak raj’i. From the perspective of Islamic law and the Compilation of Islamic Law (KHI), this decision is considered problematic, as apostasy (murtad) should be the basis for marriage annulment (fasakh), not talak. This research employs a normative juridical approach combined with a case approach. The normative juridical approach is used to examine and analyze the legal provisions governing marriage annulment (fasakh) due to apostasy under Islamic law and Indonesian positive law. The findings indicate that the Supreme Court Decision No. 724K/AG/2012 in the divorce case due to apostasy reveals a dualism of rationality between syar‘i rationality which requires fasakh as a form of annulment of the marriage contract and legal positivist rationality, which emphasizes procedural consistency and adherence to the petitum. In this context, the judges prioritized the application of formal legal procedures over direct implementation of Islamic law. According to Islamic law, apostasy should serve as a legitimate ground for marriage annulment (fasakh); however, the Supreme Court chose to rule the case through talak raj’i as it was consistent with the husband’s original petition