The purpose of this study was to find out whether the neutrality regulation of civil servants violated human rights guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution. This research is a normative legal research that uses secondary data as the main data. The data obtained were analyzed using five normative/dogmatic legal science tasks, namely positive law description, positive legal systemation, positive law analysis, positive law interpretation, and assessing positive law. The results of this study show that the existence of neutrality rules is not a violation of human rights because the rules are intended so that a civil servant can focus on government tasks that have been charged so that they can provide fair services without being affected by political considerations and prevent unfair interference in voting elections, because based on political games in the past civil servants are used as a tool to obtain votes in every election thus causing conflicts within political parties. Neutrality rules for civil servants are useful to prevent a civil servant being politicized by a regime to be directed at one of the candidates thus creating an unfair electoral process. In addition, the rule is a legal consequence for a civil servant called public service relations. When someone decides to become a civil servant, they must be ready to follow and obey the existing rules, because when they become civil servant candidates, they have been sworn to obey the applicable rules.