Curator plays an important role in bankruptcy, because in the next curator who will be assigned to manage and complete the bankruptcy estate (boedel bankruptcy). In performing its duties guided by the law No. 37 of 2004 on bankruptcy and suspension of debt payments (PKPU). Curator entitled to receive payment for its services. It is stipulated in the Regulation of Minister of Law and Human Rights No. 1 in 2013. The purpose of this study to determine how the regulations on fee curator in bankruptcy in Indonesia, and what the legal consequences of the curator in handling the settlement of bankruptcy in Indonesia after the Supreme Court Decision No 54 P/HUM/2013. This study is a normative juridical: statueand case approach. That concluded:First, there have been inconsistencies curator fee arrangement between Justice and Human Rights Minister Regulation No. 1 of 2013, particularly Article 2 paragraph (1) letter c with Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and PKPU particular Article 17 Paragraph (3). Secondly, the legal consequences of the Supreme Court Decision No 54 P/HUM/2013, that Article 2 paragraph (1) letter c Regulation of the Minister of Justice and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia Number 01/2013 regarding Guidelines for Remuneration for Receivers and Administrators declared contrary to legislation higher, namely Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment(PKPU). Thus, Regulation Minister of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia Number 01 Year 2013 is not valid and does not have binding legal force.